A Solution to Saving the Planet

Originally posted by Heike
The planet will be just fine. Our planet has survived disasters and changes far worse than anything we can come up with, and will probably do so again.

Asbolutely! Save the planet... rubbish! How about saving PEOPLE!

Actually, solar and wind energy are very inefficient right now, and that's the problem. I want to switch to wind and solar, I want to get "off the grid." As soon as the point is reached at which it is to the average person's economic benefit to switch, they will, and you won't need to convince everyone to "save the planet."

Getting off the grid = empowering people. If they are off the grid, they will be encouraged to live efficiently. Yes!

I have seen some interesting things from Mexican immigrants. They tend to live pretty efficiently. I have seen them make wind turbines from scratch and buy cheap solar and make it work well for them. I was amazed at what can be done with some inspiration and elbow grease.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, I did just think of something that isn't made of plastic (usually) and uses no oil to operate: guns!

What? No oil for your firearm? They need bore cleaner and gun oil to keep them functioning properly. I know it is off topic, but I had to add it.

Guns need oil, too

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I have seen them make wind turbines from scratch and buy cheap solar and make it work well for them. I was amazed at what can be done with some inspiration and elbow grease.

Wow, I'd sure like to learn more about that. Every time I've looked into it, I run into things I can't do myself (like changing how my house is wired), having to buy a bunch of marine batteries and something that converts DC to AC, getting all different appliances because the ones I have use too much energy, or buying literally dozens of expensive solar panels and having them set up and hooked into the system. I've found some plans for building my own windmill, but it doesn't produce much electricity and I still need the batteries and wiring and all that.

Originally posted by encinoman
The human race is a disease because we want and want and want with no regards for the consequences of our actions.

I think this is true of all life.

Life is a disease because it wants and wants and wants with no regards for the consequences of its actions.

However, I HIGHLY doubt that humans will "destroy" this planet. We might destroy our environment and take many other species with us but life will survive.

Vas

Originally posted by Heike
I have a 1600 square ft. house. It has a roof. All of the sunlight that falls on this roof does not nurture any plants. It is absorbed into the roof tiles as heat. If I cover my entire roof with solar panels, I will not be taking one sunbeam away from any plant; I will merely be using the energy that was formerly wasted. People don't generally put up new structures to put solar panels on; they attach solar panels to existing structures. And we have LOTS of structures. I think we can, with just a little common sense, use solar energy without "starving" all the trees and plants.

A building is much like rock except it's in a shape we find comfortable (afterall a house emerged out of caves). Except when sunlight is absorbed by a rock this energy goes into the soil (in the form of heat) and into the atmosphere again (not all is absorbed, a lot bounces off) this has all kinds of effects like creating high and low pressure areas that affect the wind, cloud formations, rain and ofcourse affects plants growth.

At least with buildings (a portion of) the sun's energy does not really get used up like it would be with solar panels to convert the energy to our needs, that as I mentioned do not really do much for the needs of the ecosystem, it's like a huge gap in the larger flow of energy going into a dead end.

It might not matter now with just some people converting the sun's energy to electricity, but it will matter in the future when people convert to renewable energy en masse and more will have electrical appliances, most transportation will likely run on it too. Add to that wind power, even the wind will grow weaker after passing through a windmill park and those will affect other areas. This might be farfetched but even the upper layer of the earth's crusts might cool a little, this might then drain warmth from the earth's inner heat (lava).

Better go nuclear, invest more in space programs so we can dump the waste on some other planet where it will not matter to the ecosystem and maybe extract materials for nuclear fusion from other planets.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Dragonfly79]

reply to post by Dragonfly79


Interesting theory but I can't agree with it. My roof already exists and that heat isn't going into the soil now, so it won't make any appreciable difference if I add solar panels to my roof. I just don't believe that adding solar panels to existing structures will significantly impact the amount of solar energy plants and the environment get.

Nuclear energy produces pollution and can cause terrible accidents. Chernobyl comes to mind. Solar energy and wind energy produce no pollution and don't (as far as I know) carry the potential for causing horrible accidents that kill large numbers of people and destroy the immediate environment for years.

I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

reply to post by xman_in_blackx
Grrrr, just when I was starting to like you, you go and spoil my post with facts.

As to solar energy decreasing available sunlight, yes it does. Even on your roof, it will still use energy that otherwise would be converted into heat by your roof. Now, as to whether or not that would be a major problem, I personally don't think it would. But any energy you take, whether from the water, the wind, or the sun, uses energy and therefore leaves less energy. Water power uses energy, but the resulting lack of energy in the water simply means it moves slower toward the ocean. Not a big deal. Windmills do hamper the free flow of air, but whether or not this is a concern is debatable. And solar will, even if it's on a roof, decrease the amount of heat energy available to the air around that roof.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hey! I'm an aspiring redneck myself. I'm up to 4 dogs and one "dead" car in the driveway, how am I doin'?

Firstly, it was 105 degrees F here yesterday. We don't NEED any more available heat!!

Secondly, maybe if all the solar panels suck up enough heat energy, we'll solve global warming!

Thirdly, we started out talking about the amount of sunlight plant life is receiving for photosynthesis, not atmospheric heat.

I like that Lightning remark a lot

there's a source of power worth investigating .

I think the worst thing facing us today is politicians
who corrupt science , scientitst are forced to work by the politicians guidelines following an agenda. often restricted to do what they want.

if you can't meter it ,ts no good .Mankind is left in a lurch.

reply to post by Heike

Hey! I'm an aspiring redneck myself. I'm up to 4 dogs and one "dead" car in the driveway, how am I doin'?

Need more dead cars, preferably with no wheels, sitting on blocks. Rusted out tractors are good too. Keep trying, you'll get there.

Firstly, it was 105 degrees F here yesterday. We don't NEED any more available heat!!

102 here yesterday. Yeah, more heat doesn't sound too good.

Secondly, maybe if all the solar panels suck up enough heat energy, we'll solve global warming!

I say we save the global warming up for winter and use it all then. That way we'll save heating costs.

Oops, I'd better be quiet. With some of the geniuses running around here, they'll try to build a GW battery...

Thirdly, we started out talking about the amount of sunlight plant life is receiving for photosynthesis, not atmospheric heat.

I know, but energy is energy, regardless of the form it takes. While I don't think we really need to put solar canopies over large forested areas (duh!), placing them over roofs and such actually sounds like a decent idea. You would be pulling energy out of the environment, but it is heat energy as opposed to photosynthetic energy. That was my point. That's also why I pointed out that hydro power does use up environmental energy, but in a way that doesn't hurt the environment (as far as we can tell).

I think you actually have a good idea, if only the solar panels would become more economical for people to use...

TheRedneck

reply to post by solo1

I like that Lightning remark a lot

there's a source of power worth investigating .

I actually thought about this a while back. I never really did anything more on it, for the following reasons:

• The required collector would have to be based on storing and releasing the sudden surges of power into storage batteries. That means capacitor banks would be the major component. Capacitors are notoriously voltage-sensitive and with millions of volts hitting at irregular times, I could envision no way to adequately protect these components.
  
• The currents involved would also increase the size of the capacitors to astronomical levels, making them immensely expensive to manufacture. I estimated at one time a bank of caps for a single stroke of lightning retrieval costing over $10 million. That would go up exponentially with the number of strokes absorbed before they are drained of energy.
  
• Lightning strikes are sporadic, occurring rarely if ever unless thunderstorms are present. Then hundreds of strokes may be available in a matter of minutes. The battery technology required to handle such huge charge currents and then output that stored power over a period of weeks or even months makes electric car batteries look dirt-simple by comparison.
  

In short, it sounds like a great idea (and maybe someone smarter than me will develop it someday), but there are some serious devils hiding in the details.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But any energy you take, whether from the water, the wind, or the sun, uses energy and therefore leaves less energy. Water power uses energy, but the resulting lack of energy in the water simply means it moves slower toward the ocean. Not a big deal. Windmills do hamper the free flow of air, but whether or not this is a concern is debatable. And solar will, even if it's on a roof, decrease the amount of heat energy available to the air around that roof.

TheRedneck

I still believe when we convert nature's natural and established motions of energy to some motion utterly useless to it there will be huge consequences. It's like if you imagine humanities power consumption, next to other animals and plant life we're like a huge black hole, the energy isn't going anywhere else. Which is almost poetic given how we've become so selfish in many things. In this case though if we don't share our surroundings which we depend upon will wither away.

Just picture billions of cables connected to a huge powerhouse that runs on fossil fuels (cables going to our all devices that need power to run) and a powerhouse next to it that runs on 'renewable' energy with even more cables connected to it (other animals, trees & plants). When fossil fuels run out everyone will plug in their cables into the renewable powerhouse yet there's not more energy going into the powerhouse, the input will remain the same as it did for billions of years (minus the natural diminishing output of the sun). I don't have to be a rocket scientist to see an obvious energy deficit. Besides fossil fuels not going to be used in the future that represents a deficit, there will be an increase in people that will have access to devices that need electricity, a growing power consumption while the main energy source is running out.

When we will switch from fossil fuels to natural energy it will have such an impact we wil have to cut down on our power consumption otherwise the planet will become quite dead (or better: without motion). We will literally entertain ourselves to death and not notice other animals and plants around us withering away... even if we do realize the problem in front of us that will result in death anyway since there will be huge wars over energy.

Even the drastic measures the OP stated will not be enough by then. I also believe that switch will happen within the next 3-6 decades and we will not last a decade after that.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Dragonfly79]

reply to post by Dragonfly79

I still believe when we convert nature's natural and established motions of energy to some motion utterly useless to it there will be huge consequences.

Absolutely true. The trick is to use energy resources that have a minimal impact on the ecosystems. Even pumping oil out of the ground and burning it will have some consequences.

As in my example of hydro power above, the energy we take out of the running water has an impact. That impact appears to be negligible (even beneficial in some ways, since the resulting lakes are natural havens for wildlife). Yet energy is still being removed.

I wonder if wind energy is not having some actual impact on global temperatures itself, as the prevailing winds are the natural climate control system for the planet. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were shown that the attempts to stop GW by relying on wind power were actually the cause?

Bottom line: we need energy to maintain our standard of living. It has to come from somewhere. The trick is to take it where nature doesn't need it. The best tactic to accomplish that is to understand the intricacies of nature, rather than trying to force unproven and controversial pseudo-scientific opinions on everyone.

TheRedneck

Well, let's see here....

Fossil fuels no good. Solar no good. Wind no good. Hydro no good. Nuclear too dangerous. What do you suggest we do for energy, collect cow farts for methane? Or are you suggesting we should give up electricity and most, if not all, forms of transportation?

How about looking for solutions instead of endlessly focusing on problems and potential problems?

Put up the solar collectors in the desert, or on tops of the high mountains. Figure out a way to produce energy from the ocean tides. Use waterwheels in areas where rivers and streams already run downhill instead of building more dams. Make appliances much more efficient so they use a lot less electricity (mentioned twice already and IGNORED).

Sorry, I get so tired of everything being a problem. No matter what humans do, it's going to be wrong and "kill" the planet.

Whatever we do, no, it isn't going to be perfect; goodness knows what we're doing NOW is pretty far from perfect. Can we stop looking at the shadows long enough to see some light for a change? Could we possibly consider looking for SOLUTIONS instead of just pointing out what's wrong with everyone else's potential solution?

reply to post by Heike


Oh, you definitely misunderstand me!

Acknowledging that nature is a wondrous thing and should not be destroyed is far from stating that we shouldn't use it. There is a huge difference between use and abuse.

Acknowledging that any energy we take from a system leaves less energy in that system is not the same as saying that we shouldn't use energy. Hydro is looking real good, oil doesn't seem to be a major problem (Global Warming hysteria notwithstanding), and I personally don't see where solar would be a major problem. As you mentioned, there are plenty of deserts and of course rooftops where the energy differe4ntial shouldn't be enough to cause any severe problems. Even wind, which I consider personally to be the one with the most destructive possibilities, is not a collapse of nature waiting to happen. I simply want some more research on it.

Oh, and you mentioned nuclear... a great idea, fairly clean and can operate anywhere. Nuclear waste is a difficult problem, but as I see it, one with a solution much closer than many people realize.

Whereas a lot of people want us to go back into the stone age, I feel the opposite. This is a very big planet, and should have enough energy for us all to have more than enough. We just need to be honest when evaluating it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I pollergize Redneck!

I should have been more specific, I was responding to Dragonfly79 with that rant.

Not aimed at you!

reply to post by Heike
Oh! OK, no harm done. Your response was right below my post with no one identified...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I pollergize Redneck!

I should have been more specific, I was responding to Dragonfly79 with that rant.

Not aimed at you!

Yeah well I wrote a few posts earlier I'm pro nuclear energy, the real solution to our problems would be to invest as much resources (manpower and energywise) into space exploration, use nuclear power for spaceships fuel, then explore and harvest energy from other planets and dump our waste products there. It might screw up our planet even more but at least we have a chance at migrating to other planets hoping there are more planets like Earth out there, becoming space nomads. Or even better, create a selfsustaining spacecraft where humanity could live for a long time. I'm even pro-rationing energy per citizen so we have a better chance at developing solutions before we get real serious problems.

Another idea would be farfetched but... imagine if we could put solar panels in orbit (or other energy collectors as panels are too fragile, like a windmill that rotates in the earth's magnetotail), to catch solar energy that would otherwise just pass by earth and use that for additional energy. It's inspired on the idea of making an elevator into orbit which I read years ago (as I write I can only find it in google's cache). Not very viable but that's all I can come up with, there are other issues humanity needs solutions for first anyway such as a way to end all conflict so we can seriously work together and have much more resources for research and development.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Dragonfly79]