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

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The answer is Nuclear Power which will eventually lead to Nuclear Fusion.

I agree; we need to continue researching the ways to handle the waste products, which is the only real downside to nuclear power.

Fusion is still a ways off, but if someone makes a dramatic breakthrough I will be first in line to applaud it as a new power source.

--------------------------------------
reply to post by BigfootNZ

Solar panels dont use heat to generate electrical current, they use the light to do so, heat is nothing but the result of the light hitting a surface.

I don't remember anyone stating that solar panels converted heat into electricity. They convert electromagnetic radiation (including light) into electricity.

Next time your near a solar panel on a nice sunny day stick your hand on it, it'll be nice and toasty. Heck your roof is a giant light wasting surface... i dont see you claiming its environmentally unfriendly

Yes, it does still get hot. The solar cell only converts between 10% and 20% of the light into electrical energy. The rest is changed into heat. We are trying to improve that efficiency, which will mean solar cells do not heat up as much.

As to never mentioning the houses...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And that house by its very existence has an effect on the ecology of the planet. Take a look at Chicago, the "windy city". The wind that it is so renowned for is primarily the result of man-made structures that tend to channel the natural winds into gale force gusts.

...

We loose tons of heat and light back into space every day hell if we didnt this planet would be a hellish hell hole of flame and sand like Venus.

And that is indeed a large part of the equation.

What I am wondering is why so many people seem afraid to even discuss the potential future implications of alternate energy sources? Is there a fear that something might be found wrong with them? If that is so, wouldn't it be better to know now than to realize it later on, like we did with oil?

I dunno, I thought information and open discussion was always a good thing...

Why are people thinking that the Solar panels suck in light and refuse to spit it out.. if that was so they'd be an excellent way of making yourself invisible

No one believes that. The concept is that electromagnetic energy is converted into electrical energy by solar cells. That means that less of the electromagnetic energty is converted into heat or photosynthetic action.

Why do people believe that light is immune from the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy?

-------------------------
reply to post by refuse_orders

I agree, oil is never going to "run dry" completely because its a naturally occurring substance the same as coal.

OK, I missed your point. I have to agree that even if oil is indeed abiotic, the rate at which oil is produced is probably not affected by our desires to pump more of it. I would say we have about as much chance of getting the crust to produce more oil as we do getting the sun to pump out more energy: none.

In that respect, I would not be surprised if we were already close to using oil as fast as it was being produced.

I understand how Wardenclyffe would have functioned

I seem to be getting very good at misreading posts. My apologies; your point is well-taken.

The greed of men like Morgan is what has put us in this position now, in my opinion he held back our technological development just by that one act.

It is my belief that the vast majority of our problems can be attributed to greed. Unfortunately, while I see slow progress on solar technology, substantial work on efficiency of oil use, and growing interest in alternate energy technologies, I see absolutely no progress in combating human greed.

-----------------------
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

When you turn sunlight into electrical energy, expending that
electrical energy gives off heat.

All electric motors give off heat, as do all applicances.

Most refrigerators entire backside is covered with cooling coils.

Mountains and trees disrupt the wind, as a windmill would.

Rocks in the rivers and seas disrupt the waves, as a shrouded
water turbine would.

I gave you a star for this.

Everything I quoted above is true and is definitely a part of this discussion. But let me ask you this: does oil not ultimately result in the same thing? Does any energy source used not ultimately turn the energy produced into heat? Car engines get hot, so hot in fact they use water-based cooling systems to keep them from literally melting and welding themselves together. Most industrial plants have huge cooling systems that are required to keep temperatures from the machinery down to manageable levels.

So does this fact minimize the impact from solar cells on a large scale, or would it increase the impact? Or is it a wash?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

"Everything I quoted above is true and is definitely a part of this discussion. But let me ask you this: does oil not ultimately result in the same thing? Does any energy source used not ultimately turn the energy produced into heat? Car engines get hot, so hot in fact they use water-based cooling systems to keep them from literally melting and welding themselves together. Most industrial plants have huge cooling systems that are required to keep temperatures from the machinery down to manageable levels.

So does this fact minimize the impact from solar cells on a large scale, or would it increase the impact? Or is it a wash?

TheRedneck "

All fossil fuels are stored ancient sunlight.

Burning them releases all the stored ancient heat and pollution.

I do not buy into global warming that much as plants use CO2 much
the same way humans use O2.

We have seen some serious effects thou with 20% of the worlds
coral dying off, and that does concern me.

Pollution is bad, and I think global dimming is realistic and
scientifically proven.

Some of the warming is the sun, as we saw the polar icecaps on
mars melting during the rise in surface heat here on earth.

As some scientists have said they should see the temp rise at
higher altitude via weather balloons if it is greenhouse gas caused.

Gore twisted the CO2 data, and he knew that the temp rises
first and then CO2 rises 800 yrs later.

I'd like to see an end to fossil fuels for several reasons, and we
have several ways to get off of them for good.



[edit on 29-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

But let me ask you this: does oil not ultimately result in the same thing? Does any energy source used not ultimately turn the energy produced into heat?

I think what your trying to explain is thermodynamics, as in the example you used above, burning oil, we are changing the energy from one state to another so we can make it 'work' an engine for us, this in turn generates heat as a by-product .
Thermodynamics

So does this fact minimize the impact from solar cells on a large scale, or would it increase the impact? Or is it a wash?

If im correct in understanding your question, your asking if changing the suns energy into a different state using solar cells will we generate impacts like when oil is burnt? So depending on the scale of the solar cells used would we just be creating a situation where the heat would impact the environment to the same degree that burning fossil fuels does currently.

The simple answer is no because the big difference would be there are no gasses released so i think it would be very difficult to create a global impact like burning fossil fuels does. Its essentially 'clean' energy, you have taken out the damaging factor and impact burning fossil fuels creates by removing emission of gas.

Pollution is bad, and I think global dimming is realistic and scientifically proven.

By changing over to clean energy and stopping the burning of fossil fuels global dimming would start to reduce in theory. Global dimming is caused by aerosols (sub microscopic particles) that are created when we burn fossil fuels and release carbon particles into the atmosphere. Eventually with the reduction in burning of fossil fuels and changing to solar power the dimming would be reduced and that would increase the efficiency of the solar cells. The only thing that could cause dimming that is not in your control then would be nature through volcanic eruptions or huge fires. Co2 levels will return to a natural level eventually with plants re balancing the atmosphere and that would in turn allow heat to escape efficiently, so the heat you would be creating with the solar cells would have less impact because it can escape.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Chai_An]

So depending on the scale of the solar cells used would we just be creating a situation where the heat would impact the environment to the same degree that burning fossil fuels does currently.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming (and global dimming which is reasonably similar) states that burning fossil fuels creates not only heat, but furthermore prevents heat from escaping the atmosphere - through the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect". Solar power does not introduce chemicals into the atmosphere, so this effect is somewhat limited, additionally, solar power takes energy that was already hitting the Earth, converts it into electrical energy which is redistributed, and then converted into other forms of energy, such as heat.

Solar power does NOT introduce energy which was not going to be introduced anyway, it merely redistributes it. On a massive scale it might be possible for it to upset the pattern, but the energy state will remain the same. That being said, if for example, the Ultra Violet, or the visible spectrum of light gets converted into heat, then some problems could possibly occur. It depends much on what kind of solar technology is being used - photo voltaic, or, reflectors & Rankine cycle plants. Lastly, given the heat island effect of major cities, it makes it highly unlikely significant use of "Green Power" will make any significant difference compared to those that are already occurring.

So "Green Energy" will always be more green than fossil fuels. It is fundamental. It is also generally significantly more expensive, which will make its use relatively limited compared to other forms of power, this is for a reason; green doesn't come CLOSE to doing what Nuclear and coal do. Furthermore, fossil fuels are going to be significantly taxed, and we are also running out. The best part of the solution is Nuclear, it has the potential for cheap, safe, and abundant electrical power generation which is absolutely essential for a developed society. The only drawback is initial capital cost, which is mostly caused by the detractors themselves. Going completely "Green" is a step backwards - it may be safe but it cannot provide abundant electricity and is it NOT cheap.

I agree; we need to continue researching the ways to handle the waste products, which is the only real downside to nuclear power.

"Today, the waste disposal issue is not a technical problem, but one of public and political acceptance." --- IAEA Bulletin, Volume 47/2, Mach 2006.

[edit on 30/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Is this post for real?

Yikes.