Environmental paradox

Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
http://www.windaction.org/news/20764
 Quote:
One of the biggest challenges renewable-energy projects pose is that they often take up much more land than conventional sources, such as coal-fired power plants. A team of scientists, several of whom work for the Nature Conservancy, has written a paper that will appear in the journal PLoS One showing that it can take 300 times as much land to produce a given amount of energy from soy biodiesel as from a nuclear power plant. Regardless of the climate policy the nation adopts, the paper predicts that by 2030, energy production will occupy an additional 79,537 square miles of land. The impact will be "substantial," said Jimmie Powell, the Nature Conservancy's national energy leader and one of the paper's co-authors. "It's important to know where the footprint is going to be."
 Quote:
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Audubon Society have created an online mapping project, using Google Earth, of 13 Western states to show where renewable projects would have the most impact. Out of the 860 million acres in those states, for example, there are 10,000 conservation areas, and 128 million acres are off limits to energy development.
And this last one really demonstrates the mindset:
 Quote:
"Do people think it's better all those birds are breathing CO2? I'm not a scientist, but I doubt it," said Engel, whose company is expanding its U.S. manufacturing and distribution operations. "Let's get the facts on the table and not the feelings. The fact is, these are not issues."
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
Your point? "Growing" energy is a lost cause unless you manage to use a great deal less of it. Burning grasses (you can probably pelletize them for convenient use) would work if you're into combustion based heating and whatnot ..steam engines (whatever) ..but liquid energy just doesn't come cheap if you have to produce it. Now you're getting the real value ..or rather the under value of petroleum and other fossil fuels in perspective, Tempest. Good. You're learning.
 

Tempest

Thread starter
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
Learning what? That oil is cheap so we should stop using it for vastly more expensive "alternatives"? What this shows is how inefficient these methods are. Put up a bunch of nuke plants and it will be more efficient in every way...and better for the environment.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Quote:
Learning what? That oil is cheap so we should stop using it for vastly more expensive "alternatives"?
Learning what the alternatives are to its use. Learning how precious this finite resource is. Facing the facts that it won't be here forever and that the time is NOW to be prepared for dealing without it in the current quantities that it's available. Of course, you could just get sucker punched by the events and suffer for your lack of wisdom.
 Quote:
What this shows is how inefficient these methods are.
Leaning how much of a "free ride" coal and other fossil fuels get since the energy in them is already there. Having to produce energy from scratch ..it's a much more expensive and "intensive" (labor, land use, etc) deal.
 Quote:
Put up a bunch of nuke plants and it will be more efficient in every way...and better for the environment.
No wind? Why not? You'll never have enough processed uranium to do the job. I think we've already mined the richest uranium deposits ..just like we've done with just about every other resource. I think your faith in the market is ill placed.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
People complain about energy costs, and the rises to start to get off fossil fuels. How expensive will they be when we start to run out, or have learned that we HAVE to get off them ? Yep, market will fix it, but only after the fact, and at very great expense.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
As to the space required. What's sitting above your head, is 1,000 or so square feet, exposed to the sun around half of every day, and you Rarely if ever set foot on ? There's a few acres across the country...at least they could be heating hot water.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
LOL...sorry. Although a power station in my state is adding solar heat to the feedwater system, at temperatures greater than 65C...I Guess that they are heating "hot" water. Albeit in a silly fashion, when they release about 2GW per square km in waste heat themselves.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
That desal plant sure would come in handy mated up with your output waste heat. Integrated systems is the key to conservation. Just don't waste anything for the sake of "economy of the moment".
 
Top