Going green will still kill our planet. Only one solution see inside.

If we made a complete switch to solar, wind, and hydro-electric technologies for our energy needs in otherwords "go green" what impact would this have on our weather patterns?

Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

Knowing that wind farms interrupt wind flow accross the terrain, wouldn't too many greatly affect the wind dynamics globally and thus further impact our global weather?

Knowing that the currents of oceans and quantity of water flowing down streams and flow dynamics greatly affect the water tables and natural errosion and replenishment of minerals in flood plain areas, wouldnl't interruption of their natural flow on a grand scale directly impact our environment?

The main question would be 20 years from now will we be trying to find the new green after finding out that no matter what source of energy we pillage from the environment, finding out that in the end they all have huge environmental impacts?

I am personally not sure that there is a way to use the planet without damaging it. I think that in order to get true "green" energy we will have to go ouside of our planet. The only true question is how?

I think that instead of researching ways to deplete our planet we need to be investing our money and research capabilities in finding a extra-planetary source of energy that we can introduce into our environment rather than take from our environment.

I seriously doubt that a green shift would cause more harm than it would solve.

The reason for this is that any solar panels that are contructed would be of their own location, not overhanging vital plants and greenery that need it. Wind fields are constructed at a height that does not interefere with low level winds, but instead takes advantage of high level winds that are far stronger and more capable of pushing right past, thereby creating free power.

Have you seen any major land erosion from the turbine fields created so far? No, all you have is free energy and a clean unending source as long as parts are continually provided to repair the fans themselves.

Personally I will construct a wind generator when I build my house in the next few years and the remaining power will be sold back to the county. I have lived in the country with solar panels for years living off of telephone batteries and I can honestly tell you it was one of the best times of my life.

Hurt us, no, help us, yes.

reply to post by Kingalbrect79


I never once said that they would "cannopy" greenery with solar panels. I never once said anything about errosion and wind farms. I am personally witnessing the growth of wind farms in my area. On the surface they look fine with no damage to anyting that we can see. It is what we cannot see that worries me. These energy sources tap into our environment thus changing the earths cycles. The solution would be to find a true alternative energy that does not equate to taking advantage of the planet. You are still thinking inside the box and only looking at short term effects. The long term effects of our need for energy are what I am addressing. Find a way to get energy from ouside of our planet without interrupting our planetary cycles and you have truely gone "green".

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

This makes no sense.

Just think about it.

Your thread title could do with a bit of restructuring and a few question marks:

Will going green still kill our planet? Is there only one solution?

IMO, no and NO.

You don't appear to be very well researched on the whole alt. energy thing.

Try reading some Schauberger for energy creation in harmony with nature.

ciao for now.

[edit on 26/8/09 by RogerT]

So you do not believe that the amount of energy on the earth is in a certain balance and that taking that energy from the environment could have negative effects that ripple out from each other?

You are still thinking inside the box. Why should we not be trying to find energy outside of our planet?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

This makes no sense.

Just think about it.

How does this not make any sense?

I for one think that it is too bright outside. I would welcome anything that would lower the light levels a bit. Wouldn't this also stop any warming trands as well?

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Warming trends are caused by natural events for the most part but if inadvertantly changed could lead to false weather patterns and a environmental change. There is so much about the history of the earth's life cycle that we do not know yet. I feel that we may be a little short sighted in our "green" research and may need to dig a little deeper in both the past and the future.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


I had to chime in to defend you a little. I love your questioning of what is considered obvious to everyone else. I'll reserve my judgment of this issue as I have no idea. However, it is refreshing to hear someone question that which is generally held to be the fact. You are ahead of your time and others will miss the point. You are correct though that once we figure out how to decrease pollution the next step is to limit our products consumption of electricity and then develop quicker more efficient ways to do less and less impact on our planet.

Some people can only handle baby steps. You are much further along in your thought process. In 50 years, we will be again having a discussion in our society about how to dismantle wind turbines as they effect earths natural processes. Do not get discouraged by those that cannot think past their immediate future.

Visionary thinkers think about things way into the future and develop logical steps in the present to match the future vision.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Thank you for your kind words. There are too many people who are to quick to judge a person's thought using what is currently the "acceptable" way of doing things. I am trying to think further outside our environment and only hope others may do the same.

I hear you brother.

Wind turbines are the new crucifix for the masses hoping for a brighter, greener future. Unfortunately, that's all they are...a symbol. They have not reduced CO2 emissions in any country in the world. No coal plant has ever been shut down due to displacement by wind. Rather, ridgetops, forestland and prime agricultural land is being bulldozed as we speak on this "hope and dream" everyone wants to believe in.

In the meantime, no one is seriously infusing money into viable forms of green energy because the wind industry (started by Enron) has all the subsidization wrapped up tight.

In 20 years they will stand, as rusting hulks, to the stupidity of humanity.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

This makes no sense.

Just think about it.

How does this not make any sense?

Think about how light works. It's really not hard. Particularly where "absorbing alot (sic) of sunlight....[reduces] the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment".

reply to post by Johnmike


That is just the way it is. I still do not know what you are inferring on. There is x amount of sunlight in the environment, if we start absorbing more of y sunlight then x sunlight - y sunlight < x sunlight. There would be environmental implications because of this. No one is researching this. Everyone is just assuming that because going "green" does not use fossil fuels that it is better. Yet no one is researching the damage going "green" will do to global dynamics and weather patterns. We need to bring energy into our system not take it out.

I for one am all for alternative energy sources. With our level of technology there's no reason why we can't move beyond fossil fuels besides greed. However, I don't approve of the "green movement" being used to advance the political ideas of the radical left see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also find it amusing how liberals often say we need alternative fuels and such when it's liberal politicans that refuse to have turbines and or solar panels in their "backyard" cause it would disrupt the area or the company doesn't use union workers:

When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

harrisonprice.com...

Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.

www.foxnews.com...

The whole "Green" movement is just a front to further other political goals and agendas. Check out the link for the threads on "The Apollo Alliance" and you'll see what this gov't supported "Green" movement is all about.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


your SO funny

show me ANY research that supports even on of your claims, please.

personally i find your hypothesis to be one of the weakest, more amateur, i have possibly ever seen.

so are plants doing damage to the environment? i mean they absorb sunlight, they change wind patterns, the consume biomass.

KILL THE TREES BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


I am not claiming any research. I am however using common sense in looking at the situation, with facts that we all know. I am hypothesizing and looking for answers to questions that we should be asking. Instead of trying to make some one look foolish because you do not want to think in a different way other than what is taught to you, try looking into it more. There is nothing amatuer or foolish about what I am saying. We know that any interruption to the normal balances of energy on the earth affects everything. How about we stop taking what is spoon fed to us by corporations and governments and start thinking for ourselves. The solution to our energy needs does not need to be bound to what we can find on or in earth.

And the answer to plants damaging the envrionment is a double edged scenario. If man does not intervene with the natural order of things then no the plants will regulate themselves. When man starts to change the natural order of things then yes the plants can be damaging. You could cover all land masses of the earth with plants and not absorb near the amount of solar energy that say the city of New York would need to run for just one day.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


you speak of humans as outside of the natural order. this is a logical fallacy. we are OF he earth. we were born and raised here mate. while the technologies we develop and employ can and often do have negative impacts upon the planet, the ones you are presenting are highly unlikely.

the process of vision is in fact a nervous response to the solar meditation being REFLECTED. can you imagine where i would go with this thought?

The sun radiates uniformly in all directions, mainly visible light and infrared radiation, and we can calculate the total amount of energy radiated by measuring the quantity of solar energy/second reaching every square meter of Earth and then multiplying that by the total surface area of a sphere with radius equal to the radius of Earth orbit. We get the astonishingly huge amount of 400 trillion trillion watts. To put this into a crazy context, every second the sun produces the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization. If only we could collect it all and use it!

link

no one is studying the impacts of using up solar energy to a detrimental effect on the planet because it is so incredible unlikely.

Wind energy is also not going to have major effects on the planet. it is killing birds but that can and will be dealt with.

i could see biomass energy consuming too much biomass and i could see hydro power causing problems the same that the dams already in existence have shown.

while i would agree every action has a equal and opposite reaction i do not believe they all have to be detrimental.

while your thread is a fun mental exercise i highly doubt its reality.

reply to post by Animal


So what you are saying is that the ever growing population of mankind and their insatiable need for energy can be solved with in the delicate life cycles of the Earth. I disagree.

You are still thinking based off of information fed to you instead of thinking yourself.

The amount of radiant sunlight in the environment would only change in the natural order of things on it's own to correct itself only if man did not intervene. Now that energy cycle is being changed by man while the earth suffers. The fact that man comes in and starts trying to harness the energy that would normally not be manipulated in the natural order of things is the problem. When we start taking energy from the natural cycle of things, we begin to adversley affect the natural cycle.

The fact remains that we do not know the implications of changing the level of ambient sunlight. We need to though. We as a race love our energy. The planet loves it's energy. The planet cannot think of new technologies to deal with mankinds need of energy. Mankind can think of ways to allow the planet to have it's needed energy and ours at the same time.

We can find away to get energy without taking away from our planet's energy. We just have to think beyond our bounds.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
reply to post by Animal

 

So what you are saying is that the ever growing population of mankind and their insatiable need for energy can be solved with in the delicate life cycles of the Earth. I disagree.

Nope. I never said in any way shape or form that the 'ever growing population' of humans can be maintained within the 'delicate life cycles of the Earth'.

I firmly believe that we must decrease the population to a manageable level and then maintain that population level.

You are still thinking based off of information fed to you instead of thinking yourself.

Oh come on mate. Just because I disagree with your hypothesis that alternative energy will do damage t the planet does not mean I am not capable of 'thinking for myself'.

Personally I believe in 'simple living' as the best cure for the Earth's present woes but I also believe in alternative energy.

The amount of radiant sunlight in the environment would only change in the natural order of things on it's own to correct itself only if man did not intervene.

Huh?

Now that energy cycle is being changed by man while the earth suffers. The fact that man comes in and starts trying to harness the energy that would normally not be manipulated in the natural order of things is the problem. When we start taking energy from the natural cycle of things, we begin to adversley affect the natural cycle.

How? Do you even have a SHRED of proof? I worked on a farm powered by solar energy, and ALL the plants did fantastic. No damage from us using some solar power too.

I have a friend who has a small scale water generator he powers by diverting water from a stream, through a pipe into a box housing the generator and then dumping the water back into the stream with NO apparent damage of any kind. He also has a small scale wind turbine and we have seen no adverse effects from that either.

while there is ALWAYS a potential to do damage that does not mean damage is always done.

The fact remains that we do not know the implications of changing the level of ambient sunlight. We need to though. We as a race love our energy. The planet loves it's energy. The planet cannot think of new technologies to deal with mankinds need of energy. Mankind can think of ways to allow the planet to have it's needed energy and ours at the same time.

dude there is way more energy out there than is being used.

We can find away to get energy without taking away from our planet's energy. We just have to think beyond our bounds.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]

much ado about nothing.