Green energy harming the environment

Yurt said:
i have no problem with energy conservation or green energy. i just can't stand the uber left enviro wackos who spout that green energy is not harmful to the environment.
Click to expand...
Have you calculated a mass balance on them or done a life cycle analysis?

You're comment is really a strawman in that it's mistating the "green energy" position. All energy consumption impacts the environment in some manner. It's a matter of what is having the bigger impact and what our values are. Are we more concerned about billions of tons of acid gasses, particulates and green house gasses being emitted into the atmosphere or are we more concerned about protecting endangered species? You can go to extremes on either position and your statment implies that there is no middle ground.

You're implying that alternative energy sources to the consumption of fossil fuels are more harmful to the environment then the current rate at which fossil fuels are consumed. That's not a tenable argument.
 
Derp Derp said:
Have you calculated a mass balance on them or done a life cycle analysis?

You're comment is really a strawman in that it's mistating the "green energy" position. All energy consumption impacts the environment in some manner. It's a matter of what is having the bigger impact and what our values are. Are we more concerned about billions of tons of acid gasses, particulates and green house gasses being emitted into the atmosphere or are we more concerned about protecting endangered species? You can go to extremes on either position and your statment implies that there is no middle ground.

You're implying that alternative energy sources to the consumption of fossil fuels are more harmful to the environment then the current rate at which fossil fuels are consumed. That's not a tenable argument.
Click to expand...

i should have been more clear and said some. not all green energy proponents believe that way. would you agree that the opposite of that is too much fear mongering over oil?
 
Yurt said:
i have no problem with energy conservation or green energy. i just can't stand the uber left enviro wackos who spout that green energy is not harmful to the environment.
Click to expand...

actually, i did make it clear....i never said all mott...i specifically referred to group highlighted
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The biggest problem I have with Green energy is the dubious cost/benefit analysis. Wind power in particular has never realised the cost benefits advocated by its supporters.
Click to expand...
There's also the materials and life cycles analysis of wind power. What are the inputs and what are the outputs? I remember the argument about the polystyrene clamshells used by the fast food industry. They were eventually dropped because the emitted chlorofluorcarbons (CFC's) a notorious green house gas. However, when a lifecycle analysis and material balance were analyzed for the impact these polystyrene clamshells had on the environment it was quickly determined that replacing them with paper, even recycled paper had a far more deleterious impact on the environment then the clamshell packaging did. However, due to public perception of the clamshells being more harmfull to the environment the fast food industry virtually ceased using them.
 
Onceler said:
You're such a disingenuous fool. Green energy is a "leftie" cause, so of course you hate it.

The loss of eagles w/ wind energy is sad, and bums me out as an environmentalist. But, green energy is in its infancy; technology will get better, more efficient, and less harmful. And the loss of these eagles, while regrettable, is NOTHING - and I mean nothing - compared to the damage that fossil fuel use does to ecosystems, habitats and wildlife.

So eff off w/ your horrific, partisan attempts at equivalency. Threads like this one are the most BS dishonesty that this board gets to see - at any time, ever.
Click to expand...
I think Yurt is doing a bit of trolling here. If the windmills are causing a threat to wildlife then this is an issue that needs to be addressed, a solution found and the problem resolved. I don't know if windmill energy is the solution or even part of the solution to our energy problem but I agree with both you and Tom. Yes, the technology is in it's infancy and yes, if the cost/benefit is not achieved, this technology will ultimately fail.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Wind power will never be viable as an energy source unless and until you have a national grid spanning the US. The time and resources would be far better directed to developing thorium based nuclear reactors, if it hadn't been for the Cold War in the 50s and 60s with the US military requiring weapons grade uranium and plutonium then there would be many such reactors now. China and India are leading the field in this technology, you need to wake up and smell the coffee!
Click to expand...
You can't just base it off of a cost/benefit analysis. That can only be part of the equation. Nuclear power is considered very safe, when managed correctly, and hideously dangerous when not. Alternative energy will have to include cost/benefit, health and safety, material balance and life cycle analysis. Thorium may prove to perform well in one area but fail in the others. One thing is for certain, pumping billions of tons of pollutants into our atmosphere isn't tenable and will eventually catch up with us.
 
Onceler said:
There is a point in the future where it HAS to get better & more economical. I suspect you & I might disagree on that point.

Regardless, I have endless faith in American ingenuity & preserverance. I find the celebration of certain green energy failures on this board laughable; every technology since the inception of the wheel has had failures & naysayers at its start.
Click to expand...
It may not. If the cost benefit is not there or it cannot be developed, then it will fail. Having said that, if the cost benefit is there but the technology ultimately proves unsafe, again it will fail. One has to be open minded to these realities.
 
Derp Derp said:
I think Yurt is doing a bit of trolling here. If the windmills are causing a threat to wildlife then this is an issue that needs to be addressed, a solution found and the problem resolved. I don't know if windmill energy is the solution or even part of the solution to our energy problem but I agree with both you and Tom. Yes, the technology is in it's infancy and yes, if the cost/benefit is not achieved, this technology will ultimately fail.
Click to expand...

It's just one of those things, like almost every other new emerging technology. There are ways of harnessing wind that people haven't even dreamed yet, much less done a prototype for.

The loss of life is regrettable, but the goal here is something that will hopefully result in a world where our energy consumption exists in a bit more harmony w/ nature. And I think it will, and not in some distant future either.
 
The Dude said:
Onecell, there are technological improvements in organic fossil fuels every year outpacing the bullshit fuels.
Click to expand...
There is also superior technology being developed where the combustion of fossil fuels are concerned so that there are less waste full by products but the fact remains, if a more cost affective, sustainable, cleaner and safer technology is developed and matured then carbon based fuels will be done for or will play a greatly reduced roll.
 
Yurt said:
i'm curious how this statement means i hate green energy. lol
Click to expand...
That's probably because the word "harmful" can be misleading or subjective. It would be more accurate to say that you can't stand uber left enviro wackos who spout about green energy with our recognizing that all forms of energy consumption impact good ole planet earths energy balance and ecology. That they fail to recognize no matter how energy is consumed entropy will be preserved. It's really a matter of what is the best compromise. I must admit, that people like that aggravate me too.
 
Derp Derp said:
There is also superior technology being developed where the combustion of fossil fuels are concerned so that there are less waste full by products but the fact remains, if a more cost affective, sustainable, cleaner and safer technology is developed and matured then carbon based fuels will be done for or will play a greatly reduced roll.
Click to expand...
your right here, IF
your wrong on the stupid outdated talking point we can't drill our way out.
 
Yurt said:
i should have been more clear and said some. not all green energy proponents believe that way. would you agree that the opposite of that is too much fear mongering over oil?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I agree that alarmism about fossil fuels is counterproductive but there is also plenty of data to warrant serious concenrs about the impact of fossil fuel consumption on our environment. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water but I will agree with you that there may be to much alarmism.
 
Onceler said:
It's just one of those things, like almost every other new emerging technology. There are ways of harnessing wind that people haven't even dreamed yet, much less done a prototype for.

The loss of life is regrettable, but the goal here is something that will hopefully result in a world where our energy consumption exists in a bit more harmony w/ nature. And I think it will, and not in some distant future either.
Click to expand...
Well who's to say that there's isn't a solution to preventing the loss of life to wildlife from this technology? Better permitting practices, warning devices, better placement, etc?
 
The Dude said:
your right here, IF
your wrong on the stupid outdated talking point we can't drill our way out.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. We could temporarily do that but how long would that last? 100 years? 200? 300? A drop in the piss bucket by a geolgoical time frame. If carbon energy technology is to have a long term future then ultimately it will have to be renewable.
 
The Dude said:
I know plenty you don't know!
1. I don't use emotion and platitudes of a party I use facts.
Click to expand...
So do I and can you be a little bit more specific? Last I heard known reserves of oil, coal and LP Gas would last at current rates around 100 to 200 years at the current rate of consumption. Where's the rest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top