NationStates Jolt Archive

You've all seen the ads about converting to electricity, touting it as an eco-friendly energy source.

I've done a little reading and I want to know, what's so eco-friendly about it?

Electricity is produced by, essentially, spinning a turbine. The turbine is spun by motors using one of six power sources.

1. fuels like oil, coal and biomass (wood, organic products) used to create steam - this is the most common power source. Right - clean burning coal and oil. Even biomass causes greenhouse gasses.

2. geothermal steam - one still has to find and reach the geothermal source, usually by drilling - a bit of the hot steam escapes - greenhouse gas.

3. gas turbine engines - again, fuels like coal and oil.

4. Nuclear power - possibly one of the cleanest sources if it's properly handled - that's the problem - how many times is it properly handled?

5. Wind turbines (aka wind machines) which have to be manufactured in factories. Then they litter the landscape, because you can't have just one, you have to have them in huge masses.

6. Hydroelectric - this means finding rivers, building dams and destroying whole ecosystems.

So, how does one justify calling electricity eco-friendly? It not only uses resources, but most of the resources used cause environmental problems and it's expensive as hell.

A better question: when has nuclear power not been handled properly? There was Three Mile Island (which resulted in no deaths or injuries) and Chernobyl (which was the fault of soviet dipshits). Seriously, very few incidents and very few deaths, especially when compared to the others.

A better question: when has nuclear power not been handled properly? There was Three Mile Island (which resulted in no deaths or injuries) and Chernobyl (which was the fault of soviet dipshits). Seriously, very few incidents and very few deaths, especially when compared to the others.

Well, the French have figured that out, but since when does my country give a shit about what works for France?

The question remains, though. Given that nuclear power may be the cleanest, cheapest and safest source of energy we have (if we use it and if we use it with proper safety protocols), the fact remains that all the other sources, even those touted as green, are not clean, not cheap and definitely not safe. So, how do the pundits justify calling electricity, as it is presently produced, green?

I do believe that you completely ignored solar in that equation. ;)

Geothermal isn't bad, either. So you release a little water vapor - it comes back as rainfall. Funny how that works.

A better question: when has nuclear power not been handled properly? There was Three Mile Island (which resulted in no deaths or injuries) and Chernobyl (which was the fault of soviet dipshits). Seriously, very few incidents and very few deaths, especially when compared to the others.

Three Mile Island didn't have a complete meltdown, and the people running the show didn't realize that a valve in the primary cooling circuit was open, IIRC...

The question remains, though. Given that nuclear power may be the cleanest, cheapest and safest source of energy we have (if we use it and if we use it with proper safety protocols), the fact remains that all the other sources, even those touted as green, are not clean, not cheap and definitely not safe. So, how do the pundits justify calling electricity, as it is presently produced, green?

Well, your assertion that wind turbines have to be manufactured in factories is a bit disingenuous. All turbines must be manufactured, as do all methods of electricity generation. I'm not sure how you see wind turbines as "littering the landscape" any more than overhead wires do. We got used to those being everywhere. I don't see wind farms as litter. I see them as the least polluting source of electricity. That includes solar, whose photovoltaic components are more environmentally poisonous than anything that goes into any kind of turbine -- thought the concentration method of using the sun to heat oil which then boils water for steam is promising, environmentally speaking.

there's always fusion power(if they would invest in the research of it)

I do believe that you completely ignored solar in that equation. ;)

Geothermal isn't bad, either. So you release a little water vapor - it comes back as rainfall. Funny how that works.

Solar doesn't involved spinning a turbine, to the best of my knowledge.

It be the devil's work

It be the devil's work

What would Jesus do? He'd get by without evil electricity, that's what!

You've all seen the ads about converting to electricity, touting it as an eco-friendly energy source.

I've done a little reading and I want to know, what's so eco-friendly about it?

Electricity is produced by, essentially, spinning a turbine. The turbine is spun by motors using one of six power sources.

1. fuels like oil, coal and biomass (wood, organic products) used to create steam - this is the most common power source. Right - clean burning coal and oil. Even biomass causes greenhouse gasses.

2. geothermal steam - one still has to find and reach the geothermal source, usually by drilling - a bit of the hot steam escapes - greenhouse gas.

3. gas turbine engines - again, fuels like coal and oil.

4. Nuclear power - possibly one of the cleanest sources if it's properly handled - that's the problem - how many times is it properly handled?

5. Wind turbines (aka wind machines) which have to be manufactured in factories. Then they litter the landscape, because you can't have just one, you have to have them in huge masses.

6. Hydroelectric - this means finding rivers, building dams and destroying whole ecosystems.

So, how does one justify calling electricity eco-friendly? It not only uses resources, but most of the resources used cause environmental problems and it's expensive as hell.

Eco-friendliness is a matter of degree. Everything uses resources. Something becomes 'eco-friendly' through a combination of efficiency, recyclability and environmental impact.

Oil for example has a large but finite supply, reasonably high efficiency, very low recyclability(you can only use it once) and high environmental impact. You could reduce it's environmental impact and possibly increase it's efficiency, but the fact that it's finite and not reuseable will make sure it's never eco-friendly.

Now take wind generators. They have moderate efficiency because though they generate a considerable amount of power over their life expectancy, the initial expenditure of resources is fairly high. They have high recyclability because in addition to a long life span, the materials can be reused and recycled in a highly efficient manner. They have a moderate environmental impact because of the large amount of land they require and possible threat to migratory birds. I'd call this eco-friendlier than oil primarily due to it's high recyclability and less severe environmental impact. It could be made eco-friendlier with more efficient construction techniques(less expensive and/or more durable materials) and proper placement to limit environmental impact.

The only way to get truly eco-friendly electricity is to stand in an open field holding up a metal rod during a storm. :)

Solar doesn't involved spinning a turbine, to the best of my knowledge.

direct exchange of photons for electrons.

I do believe that you completely ignored solar in that equation. ;)

Geothermal isn't bad, either. So you release a little water vapor - it comes back as rainfall. Funny how that works.

Yea, I didn't get the OP's point about the escaping vapour... Nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Geothermal, where it's possible geologically is by far the best option. The only thing is there are relatively few places in the world that can exploit it. Those who do are laughing.

Solar doesn't involved spinning a turbine, to the best of my knowledge.

Solar is an excellent power source, nd in practical terms is probably the best, and IMHO, the way of the future, as it's not nearly as restricted in availability as Geothermal is.

As for the turbine issue, actually most solar power stations do use them. Rather than use of photovoltaic cells, a much more efficient method is the use of the focused heliostat, where arrays of sun tracking mirrors reflect and focus the suns rays onto a "target" point. At this point a material (often Sodium) is used to store this heat that is used to boil water for steam to drive a turbine as in any other power station. The advantage of this over photovoltaic generation methods is that since the heat is stored, it operates 24hrs a day, not only when there is sunlight. Unlimited, no direct fuel costs.

Hydropower is wildly destructive, since it operates directly against agriculture, in most cases, since rivers almost always flow through the best land (for obvious reasons) so in damning them the most fertile land is destroyed.

there's always fusion power(if they would invest in the research of it)They invest billions in the research of fusion power. Not much success yet.
A possibly cheaper alternative approach (http://www.emc2fusion.org/) to fusion (which would "only" cost 200 million) is ignored though. Because they have their eyes set on the ITER approach.

Blablabla
Isn't it so that one big powerplant is more efficient than hundreds of smaller ones?

Isn't it so that one big powerplant is more efficient than hundreds of smaller ones?

No. The biggest inefficiency in electrical generation is transmission. It'd be more efficient to have power generation on site than to have one big central powerplant and send it everywhere via powerlines. *nod*

Eco-friendliness is a matter of degree. Everything uses resources. Something becomes 'eco-friendly' through a combination of efficiency, recyclability and environmental impact....
The only way to get truly eco-friendly electricity is to stand in an open field holding up a metal rod during a storm. :)

I would like to also add that local environment is also very important in deciding which method of electricity generation is greenest. Solar power is far more useful in arid tropical regions than in some gloomy grey northern country. However, many of those gloomy grey northern countries may be able to use tidal action to generate electricity. Context is very important.

Yea, I didn't get the OP's point about the escaping vapour... Nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Geothermal, where it's possible geologically is by far the best option. The only thing is there are relatively few places in the world that can exploit it. Those who do are laughing.

It's geologically possible in many regions for small scale projects such as heating or cooling small buildings. Whether or not it is applicable to large scale electricity production is another question. Do you have a source for your claim?

Hydropower is wildly destructive, since it operates directly against agriculture, in most cases, since rivers almost always flow through the best land (for obvious reasons) so in damning them the most fertile land is destroyed.

How about a whole series of small scale dams strung along the existing water course? You lose the potential energy stored in the height difference, but it does resolve the environmental difficulties associated with hydroelectric power.

No. The biggest inefficiency in electrical generation is transmission. It'd be more efficient to have power generation on site than to have one big central powerplant and send it everywhere via powerlines. *nod*
True, but I was thinking of one big plant versus hundreds of cars, all having ~30% efficiency. Would that make a difference?

No. The biggest inefficiency in electrical generation is transmission. It'd be more efficient to have power generation on site than to have one big central powerplant and send it everywhere via powerlines. *nod*
Quite.
True, but I was thinking of one big plant versus hundreds of cars, all having ~30% efficiency. Would that make a difference?
No, because you'd have one big plant running at somewhere between 15 and 30% efficiency to get your electricity to town, then having extra losses in transmission and changing voltages, etc etc etc.

No, because you'd have one big plant running at somewhere between 15 and 30% efficiency to get your electricity to town, then having extra losses in transmission and changing voltages, etc etc etc.Beuh, I thought they would have a higher efficiency than that.

True, but I was thinking of one big plant versus hundreds of cars, all having ~30% efficiency. Would that make a difference?

SOmetimes. Let's assume centralized fossil fuel energy production: Automobile engines can be quite efficient electricity producers. One of the reasons why hybrids are more efficient is that the engine only has to operate at one rpm speed so it can be fine-tuned for even more efficiency. Electric cars would have to be plugged into an electrical grid(and it's substantial transmission losses). On the other hand, you would save considerable energy by not having to ship and distribute hydrocarbon fuel to every automobile in the country.

Suppose it were possible to power a car entirely with solar power(which would be difficult). Having the panels on the car would be more efficient that plugging an electric car into a solar-supplied electrical grid. Now put solar panels on your plug-in car and on the house you plug it into however, and even if some power has to be supplied by a grid, you are still maximizing efficiency by using the best of both worlds.

My new motto for the last six months has been: "Everything should have solar panels on it." *nod*

SOmetimes. Let's assume centralized fossil fuel energy production: Automobile engines can be quite efficient electricity producers. One of the reasons why hybrids are more efficient is that the engine only has to operate at one rpm speed so it can be fine-tuned for even more efficiency. Electric cars would have to be plugged into an electrical grid(and it's substantial transmission losses). On the other hand, you would save considerable energy by not having to ship and distribute hydrocarbon fuel to every automobile in the country.Electric cars? Where? What? Did I read the first post? (Well, half, anyway).

Now I forgot what I wanted to say :/

Suppose it were possible to power a car entirely with solar power(which would be difficult). Having the panels on the car would be more efficient that plugging an electric car into a solar-supplied electrical grid. Now put solar panels on your plug-in car and on the house you plug it into however, and even if some power has to be supplied by a grid, you are still maximizing efficiency by using the best of both worlds.Though I agree with this, it wasn't what I was blabbering about.:tongue:

My new motto for the last six months has been: "Everything should have solar panels on it." *nod*Solar powered scrotum seaking attack weasels?

Solar powered scrotum seaking attack weasels?

Solar powered scrotums. :eek:

No. The biggest inefficiency in electrical generation is transmission. It'd be more efficient to have power generation on site than to have one big central powerplant and send it everywhere via powerlines. *nod*
Actually, all combined transmission and distribution losses have been only 7.2% of electricity produced in US. (source) (http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf) That includes all power lines and transformers, from the generator to the socket. A significant fraction of losses occurs in home wiring.

Cost-wise, transmission adds about 0.25 cents/kWh per 1000 miles to the electricity cost.

It's only more efficient to have on-site generation if generators used are the same - e.g. solar cells or wind turbines.


No, because you'd have one big plant running at somewhere between 15 and 30% efficiency to get your electricity to town, then having extra losses in transmission and changing voltages, etc etc etc.
Big power plants run at 60% efficiency, for CC gas turbines, as opposed to 30-35% for diesel generators and 20-30% for petrol car engines. So on-site production requires 80-150% more fuel than centralized.

Large nuclear plants reach a thermal efficiency of 40%, while smaller, i.e. ship and submarine, operate at only 20%; and if making their special fuel is considered, they operate at net loss.

Since the savings from removing all long-range transmission would only be around 3-4%, it would be a major net loss unless the system has to consist of small modules anyway.

Imagine we had a machine that could convert solar energy directly into chemical energy!

The only way it could be better is if we could also use it to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and made it entirely recyclable or biodegradable.

And we could go really sci-fi and have it be one of those machines that also replicates itself.

I understand our technology is nowhere near creating something like this, but I already have a name. We can call it 'plant life'.

Imagine we had a machine that could convert solar energy directly into chemical energy!

The only way it could be better is if we could also use it to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and made it entirely recyclable or biodegradable.

And we could go really sci-fi and have it be one of those machines that also replicates itself.

I understand our technology is nowhere near creating something like this, but I already have a name. We can call it 'plant life'.

And we could develop a mode of transportation that could run on this energy source with little or even no additional processing. All they would need to continue operation is fuel and water. While we're going all-out, we can even make them self-replicating. As for a name, I was thinking maybe 'horses'. *nod*

And we could develop a mode of transportation that could run on this energy source with little or even no additional processing. All they would need to continue operation is fuel and water. While we're going all-out, we can even make them self-replicating. As for a name, I was thinking maybe 'horses'. *nod*

...and when they break down we can make them into glue and sandwiches.

Why hasn't someone thought of this before!!??!!

On a more serious note, it would be nice to use nature's synergetic systems of energy production, as they seem to be very efficient and are already existing.

The only way to get truly eco-friendly electricity is to stand in an open field holding up a metal rod during a storm. :)

I tell you, the static fields really mess with your hair during that type of harvesting. What we really need are flash-transfer batteries, since what we've got is just too slow to charge from lightning bolts. Thus creating static fields that really mess with the hair even after the storm has passed.

We should just all drive IT.

We should just all drive IT.

Gyration!

You've all seen the ads about converting to electricity, touting it as an eco-friendly energy source.

I've done a little reading and I want to know, what's so eco-friendly about it?

Electricity is produced by, essentially, spinning a turbine. The turbine is spun by motors using one of six power sources.

1. fuels like oil, coal and biomass (wood, organic products) used to create steam - this is the most common power source. Right - clean burning coal and oil. Even biomass causes greenhouse gasses.

this is what we are trying to get away from. Some argue that as oil and coal runs out we will naturally use other sources as the cost goes up.
2. geothermal steam - one still has to find and reach the geothermal source, usually by drilling - a bit of the hot steam escapes - greenhouse gas.
very nice source of energy last a long time most of the escape steam would have escaped anyways. Problem most place don't have access to this energy source, and there is not enough available to energize the planet places like Iceland can use this very effectively however.
3. gas turbine engines - again, fuels like coal and oil.
more efficient then traditional plants but still Co2/pollution heavy.
4. Nuclear power - possibly one of the cleanest sources if it's properly handled - that's the problem - how many times is it properly handled?
current cheapest solution that is Co2 clean. the waste is almost always handed well in the developed world. And technically there is less radiation per year then a traditional coal power plant, albeit in a more confined space. cost about 30% more then coal mainly due to disposal. there is a safe way to dispose of it by dumping waster material in the Marianas Trench but that violates current UN anti dumping in the ocean law (so wait for the Chinese to start doing it first when they begin to use nuclear power in mass in the next 50 years).
5. Wind turbines (aka wind machines) which have to be manufactured in factories. Then they litter the landscape, because you can't have just one, you have to have them in huge masses. cheap and clean provided your looking at a small scale situation. Cost increase dramatically when you have to 1 build a larger number of wind turbines to make up for the fact that wind isn't blowing everywhere all the time. On top of this you have to upgrade infrastructure to transmit more power to different places. (we do so limited but no where near what we need in order to use Wind). is a possible solution in places like the UK where smaller populations and large tracks of coast line lead to good wind and less of a need to build stuff

6. Hydroelectric - this means finding rivers, building dams and destroying whole ecosystems. is pretty much at capacity. Also has to compete with drinking water needs of people.

So, how does one justify calling electricity eco-friendly? It not only uses resources, but most of the resources used cause environmental problems and it's expensive as hell.

It is cheaper then gas for the work you do. (at least in the US) and overall it has a net lower Co2 emissions then a combustion engine. However you get less torque performance and range with an electric motor.

what we need to do is have stationary bikes all hooked up to turbines. get fit and be energy concious.

Solar powered scrotums. :eek:

Woman: Eek!!!
Man: No, I'm not flashing you... I'm just low on juice...

there is a safe way to dispose of it by dumping waster material in the Marianas Trench but that violates current UN anti dumping in the ocean law (so wait for the Chinese to start doing it first when they begin to use nuclear power in mass in the next 50 years).
It's only "safe" in the sense that you pollute the Ocean with containers that are bound to rust through and break apart in time.

A clean way would be concrete-sealed storage in deep old mines in rocky soil. Which is pretty much what is used now.

Although the best way to deal is recycling. Normal plants only extract ~1-2% of the energy, with the rest left in waste and DU. Recycling allows to bring it up to ~90% (of course, some will be spent recycling, but still we're talking about 30-70 times more energy per unit of fuel). Without recycling, nuclear is only enough for ~100 years; with recycling, at least 1,000 including growth.

It's only "safe" in the sense that you pollute the Ocean with containers that are bound to rust through and break apart in time.

A clean way would be concrete-sealed storage in deep old mines in rocky soil. Which is pretty much what is used now.

Although the best way to deal is recycling. Normal plants only extract ~1-2% of the energy, with the rest left in waste and DU. Recycling allows to bring it up to ~90% (of course, some will be spent recycling, but still we're talking about 30-70 times more energy per unit of fuel). Without recycling, nuclear is only enough for ~100 years; with recycling, at least 1,000 including growth.
first assuming recycling was thinking more about the left overs from that.
actually dumping in the Mariana's trench is more then just putting it in the oceans. It is a subduction zone the containers float to the bottom of the trench and by the time they rust and break apart they have been pulled underground and are on their way to the mantle which as a higher base radiation then the waste.

Also your underestimating nuclear reserves. We have not even really begun to look for reserves in an industrial fashion. All of our current reserves were found by researches studying radiation. It is sort of like the first oil crisis in 1928. The world though we were running out of oil. What in reality we were running out of was oil that bubbled to the surface due to pressure and would then tell us where to drill for oil. So we had to find new ways to look for oil. Because nuclear energy is so limited there has not really been anything spent in researching it. counting unknown reserves(by making guesses of average content of Uranium in the earth's crust) most estimates are upwards of 10,000 years worth of energy. (anything more then 500 years is almost impossible to predict anyways and anything past 100 is very hard to predict)

We need that gun from portal! We could use a very heavy object, two portals, and a resistant turbine... BOOM! We get gravity electricity! Gosh, I'm a genius. Now I just need to invent that gun.... *Studies "Portal" very closely*

first assuming recycling was thinking more about the left overs from that.
actually dumping in the Mariana's trench is more then just putting it in the oceans. It is a subduction zone the containers float to the bottom of the trench and by the time they rust and break apart they have been pulled underground and are on their way to the mantle which as a higher base radiation then the waste.
Why would they be pulled into the mantle? Earth has a crust, including under the oceans. Sure, containers would have a bit of sediment covering them, but it's a pretty trivial amount, considering that the current layer has been accumulated over a couple billion years - micrometers (not millimeters!) per year.


counting unknown reserves(by making guesses of average content of Uranium in the earth's crust) most estimates are upwards of 10,000 years worth of energy.
That includes uranium that is economically impractical to extract. Practically usable deposits are much lower.

That includes uranium that is economically impractical to extract. Practically usable deposits are much lower.

Of course, if the price rises enough those deposits soon become viable. Uranium is log-distributed; each decrease in the quality of the ore produces considerably more recoverable reserves. As a result, it's pretty hard for us to ever exhaust uranium supplies, especially with things like reprocessing and breeder reactors.

Not to mention, of course, there's a shit ton of thorium (far more than uranium) that could also be used. Nuclear power's the way to go when it comes to supplying base load power for renewables (along with geothermal and natural gas, of course). It just amazes me that the European countries can generally build and expand nuclear power far more easily than the US even though our worst nuclear accident was Three Mile Island...

Solar doesn't involved spinning a turbine, to the best of my knowledge.
Some do ...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4232571.html

You're absolutely right. That's why I make sure all of my electricity is hamster-powered.

<snip>

I will never get over the weirdness of sense coming from someone with a naked Calvin as their avatar.

But basically, what LG said, except we should build lots of solar panels out in the desert, we could power everything west of Texas with them.

there's always fusion power(if they would invest in the research of it)
They're already investing a fairly large chunk into fusion research already.

They invest billions in the research of fusion power. Not much success yet.
A possibly cheaper alternative approach (http://www.emc2fusion.org/) to fusion (which would "only" cost 200 million) is ignored though. Because they have their eyes set on the ITER approach.

I though those systems weren't reliable for being scaled up/down?

My new motto for the last six months has been: "Everything should have solar panels on it." *nod*
Solar powered Solar Panels ;).

On a more serious note, it would be nice to use nature's synergetic systems of energy production, as they seem to be very efficient and are already existing.
*Points*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectrochemical_cell (Wiki: Photoelectrochemical cell)

Why hasn't someone thought of this before!!??!!

On a more serious note, it would be nice to use nature's synergetic systems of energy production, as they seem to be very efficient and are already existing.

The problem with those systems is that they extremely energy efficient--for what they need. They produce nothing beyond that, especially not on the scale that humanity requires. Those systems are also extremely difficult to scale upwards, especially since so much energy is currently available in much more easily attainable ways.

I imagine there is research being done into it, but not much.

*Points to self's post above*

I though those systems weren't reliable for being scaled up/down?Well, considering the prototype they had was only a fraction of the size it needed to be, I would say it could. There is a very interesting talk on google video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606) about it.
Basically the bigger you make it, the better it is. Because you can achieve a higher density, and so get higher fusion rates. And if they can get that boron reaction working, it will be completely radiation free, unlike most other approaches to fusion where you get high energy neutrons.
Of course, there's always reason to be skeptical when there are claims of a "new clean fusion breakthrough", but it seems to be based on solid science for once; done by a renowned scientist (who unfortunately died last year, but the work is continuing).

Well, considering the prototype they had was only a fraction of the size it needed to be, I would say it could. There is a very interesting talk on google video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606) about it.
Basically the bigger you make it, the better it is. Because you can achieve a higher density, and so get higher fusion rates. And if they can get that boron reaction working, it will be completely radiation free, unlike most other approaches to fusion where you get high energy neutrons.
Of course, there's always reason to be skeptical when there are claims of a "new clean fusion breakthrough", but it seems to be based on solid science for once; done by a renowned scientist (who unfortunately died last year, but the work is continuing).

I have dialup, so no google video for me (is there a download link?) :p.

Proton-Boron reaction needs a much higher confinement, from what I've seen they're using Deuterium-Deuterium reactions (even ITER is only using D-T, since it's much easier than a p-B reaction).

The problem being that if gets to be larger it's cooling systems may be swamped by various hotspots in the design (which could stop the magnets from being superconducting). It does look intersting though.

I have dialup, so no google video for me (is there a download link?) .There's a download link on the google video page. 290MB for the whole video (so that'd take a while on dialup; you might be better off commandeering someone's broadband and putting it on a CD; or have someone send it by post ;) ).

Proton-Boron reaction needs a much higher confinement, from what I've seen they're using Deuterium-Deuterium reactions (even ITER is only using D-T, since it's much easier than a p-B reaction).Yes, they used deuterium because they were underfunded and couldn't afford a full scale prototype. However, the principle of the device works for both reactions (and many others). And it'd be nice not to turn the reactor radioactive.

It also seems they did get funding some time after that video (from the navy, again)
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/28/1301440.aspx?CommentPosted=true
So maybe we'll see where it leads after all.

What would Jesus do? He'd get by without evil electricity, that's what!

actually, he would probably turn water into oil. *nods*

i have always had the idea of getting all the fat people to use exercise bikes, then hook the bikes up to generators. kills two birds with one stone.

The question remains, though. Given that nuclear power may be the cleanest, cheapest and safest source of energy we have (if we use it and if we use it with proper safety protocols), the fact remains that all the other sources, even those touted as green, are not clean, not cheap and definitely not safe. So, how do the pundits justify calling electricity, as it is presently produced, green?

is it not that the 'ecological cost' (for want of a better term) on average per unit of power is lower than alternatives? is it an economies of scale arguement?


oh and, http://www.dailytech.com/Scientist+Transmits+Solar+Power+on+Earth+Next+Up+Space/article12953.htm :cool:

Electricity's for noobs, I use magic.

actually, he would probably turn water into oil. *nods*

i have always had the idea of getting all the fat people to use exercise bikes, then hook the bikes up to generators. kills two birds with one stone.

Fat people, like me, don't have enough energy of their own to produce enough energy for you. You need skinny, fit people to produce enough energy.

I think we should initiate an electricity generation program where we take humans hostage, dazzle them with an ultra-high-bandwidth, fully-interactive, fully-realistic cyber-neural virtual reality network, feed them intravaneously for life and take care of all their physical needs, including growing and/or producing the food they need and purifying their water. Then we'll harvest each one for their roughly ~100 watts of thermal energy. This will all work out because we've managed to be able to produce food nutrients, clean water and The One True Internet all for no energy at all, thus we don't actually need the human energy batteries after all, making it all completely pointless.

If the technology to capture all or most carbon dioxide for coal power stations forms
2CO2 (2-) + O2 + 2Ca2+ to 2CaCO3
could you argue coal is clean (ps i dont think the chemistry equation would be clear if coppied straight from word)

Before someone goes off that its a pipe dream or dosnt exist yet I mean this as a hypothetical.

Sure land is destroyed but the trees can be replanted. Land would also be destroyed for hydropower as dams need to be constructed
Solar power requires mining for the materials and the energy to form them
Wind requires the land and materials

When does a system become "clean". The term "clean" is used more as a marketing tool then actual fact. Everything we buy has some kind of impact. its not as it the material generated from nowhere.

You've all seen the ads about converting to electricity, touting it as an eco-friendly energy source.

I've done a little reading and I want to know, what's so eco-friendly about it?

Electricity is produced by, essentially, spinning a turbine. The turbine is spun by motors using one of six power sources.

1. fuels like oil, coal and biomass (wood, organic products) used to create steam - this is the most common power source. Right - clean burning coal and oil. Even biomass causes greenhouse gasses.

2. geothermal steam - one still has to find and reach the geothermal source, usually by drilling - a bit of the hot steam escapes - greenhouse gas.

3. gas turbine engines - again, fuels like coal and oil.

4. Nuclear power - possibly one of the cleanest sources if it's properly handled - that's the problem - how many times is it properly handled?

5. Wind turbines (aka wind machines) which have to be manufactured in factories. Then they litter the landscape, because you can't have just one, you have to have them in huge masses.

6. Hydroelectric - this means finding rivers, building dams and destroying whole ecosystems.

So, how does one justify calling electricity eco-friendly? It not only uses resources, but most of the resources used cause environmental problems and it's expensive as hell.

Then there's photo-voltaic electricity - this comes from the sun and it's the cleanest option.:D