Author Topic: Renewable energy wrecks environment  (Read 13360 times)

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Renewable energy wrecks environment
« on: July 25, 2007, 07:08:30 PM »
Quote
Renewable energy wrecks environment
Renewables fail environmental test

Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment.

Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He also compares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."

On this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.

A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.

Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."

Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.

One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meter of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

Solar power also comes in for criticism. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about than 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Moreover, every form of renewable energy involves vast infrastructure, such as concrete, steel, and access roads. "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' but renewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as natural gas or nuclear," Ausubel says.

While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometers and there are considerations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heart of the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energy source. Benefiting from economies of scale, nuclear energy could multiply its power output and even shrink the energy system, in the same way that computers have become both more powerful and smaller.

"Renewables may be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."


Greens pumping nukes.  Will wonders never cease?

The scalability bit is also, ahh, grist for the mill.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2007, 07:17:10 PM »
Nothing happens without consequences.

That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.

They just won't tell you that at the Toyota dealership, and folks hell-bent on buying one don't want to hear it, anyway.   undecided
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

SomeKid

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2007, 07:19:13 PM »
I wish we would biuld more nuclear plants.

However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.

Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.

The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,233
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2007, 09:57:08 PM »
The sky is falling.

Now give me more grant money.
 
Blog under construction

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2007, 04:18:59 AM »
The sky is falling.

Now give me more grant money.
 


exactly
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2007, 04:49:31 AM »
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite?

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2007, 05:26:43 AM »
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite?

I think he talking the processes to make the batteries and disposal of the batteries in the hybrid cars.

My feelings towards hybrid cars and ethanol from corn is the same, its a great start.

-C

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2007, 05:33:39 AM »
I wish we would biuld more nuclear plants.

However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.

Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.

The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.

You are right about the solar. It can be erected in "wasted spaces". So in large part, any "footprint" issues are moot.

Mainly the problem with solar is that the more efficient the cells, the more they cost. And the break-even point on expense, and the energy to produce, install, and maintain the cells is somewhere around 12-18 years, but realisticaly more like 20-25 years when you take subsidies out of the equation.

And the probability of storm damage (hail, wind, support frames being overloaded by a blizzard etc.) destroying or severely degrading the cells approaches close to 100% over 25 years. Most cell designs also degrade over time, producing less power as they age.

There is a decent possibility that someone could come up with a cell design that is either so cheap, or so efficient, it pays for itself very quickly, and can be made into roofing or whatnot, so every rooftop could use it, even in northern latitudes. However, we won't know that until it happens.

Solar does already make good sense in any application that justifies it's expense, like remote places where the cost of running power lines has to be factored in, or the user desires electrical power even if SHTF or there's a major utility failure. In that case all economic arguments go out the window, as you can't buy electricity at any price in a blackout. However, just like the hybrid vehicles, it does not always make sense.
I promise not to duck.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,460
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2007, 05:38:06 AM »
Didn't we have a thread some weeks ago about some professor whining that humans were taking up far too much of our "fair share" of solar energy? I think that's a pretty good indication of just how frigging whacked some of these people are.

I find a LOT in this article that is highly suspicious, though.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2007, 05:43:20 AM »
Didn't we have a thread some weeks ago about some professor whining that humans were taking up far too much of our "fair share" of solar energy? I think that's a pretty good indication of just how frigging whacked some of these people are.

I find a LOT in this article that is highly suspicious, though.

I'm waiting for the wacko that states how to reduce a carbon footprint is go kill a few people.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2007, 05:52:49 AM »
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite?

Google "CNW Study Hybrid", and you'll find more than you care to read.


The study has obviously generated lots of controversy with the Hybrid community. And they've claimed to have poked all sorts of holes in the study. Just like the zealotry surrounding the global warming debate, it's hard to get an honest accounting of who's right, because so much emotional and political investment is in the arguments.

The main argument by the hybrid lovers is that the CNW study used a lifetime figure of 100,000 miles, and not more. However, the hybrid lovers seem to be ignoring that you will need new NiMh batteries, the most environmentally offensive part of the car, at least once. And even though NiMh batteries can be recycled, it takes yet more energy to do so. Whereas the recycling of a traditional car is a net energy savings, as scrap steel is much cheaper to melt, than making it from scratch with mined iron ore&

However, even if you take the CNW study with a huge grain of salt, I think they have made the point that the total energy expenditure and environmental impact of production of a hybrid is probably still much higher than the stingiest econo-box you can find, like a Civic, Aspire, or a Scion, especially if it's at least partially produced domestically.

Odds are that the punk kid in his boxy Scion, tricked out with those annoying sub-woofers is indeed harming the environment less than your snooty neighbors with the Prius and the Ralph Nader bumper sticker.

I agree partially with charby that hybrids hold promise, but they way their being executed now is a pure scam, and nothing more than a fashion statement. A constant RPM (maximized for efficiency and exhaust) direct drive diesel generator that uses smaller batteries, and DC motors are the drivetrain, would away with the complicated "synergy drive" gas-electric where there's tons of expense, a complicated drivetrain full of parasitic losses. Those show great promise. Hell, diesel-electric is a well understood technology, and it's been used on locomotives, submarines, and busses for decades.
I promise not to duck.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,460
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2007, 05:56:50 AM »
Hey, look at what I just found...

Feeling REALLY guilty that your conspicuous consumption is killing Mother Earth?

Well there's now a credit card for you!

From the NY Times

"Feel guilty about fueling up that gas guzzler or buying that box of incandescent bulbs? Would you feel better if, instead of frequent flier miles or cash, your credit cards rewards program allowed you to offset your role in global warming?
 
For every $100 spent on an Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard, G.E. offers $1 in carbon offsets.

General Electric is betting you will. Today, G.E. will introduce the GE Money Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard, which allows cardholders to forgo a 1 percent cash rebate on purchases and earmark that amount for projects that reduce greenhouse gases. In months when they feel short of money, cardholders can opt to contribute half and take half in cash.

G.E. will keep a running tally of the amounts, and each Earth Day it will use the total to buy offsets of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, GE gets to earn interest on money that it would have otherwise paid out to consumers. Smart for them!

The offsets will be purchased by GE AES Greenhouse Gas Services, a joint venture between GE Energy Financial Services and the AES Corporation, a power company.

G.E. has a commercial finance group that creates carbon offsets, a finance division that creates credit cards, and of course, Ecomagination, said Tom Gentile, chief marketing officer for GE Money, referring to G.E.s program to develop green products. We are in a perfect position to help people make a difference through their purchases.

Environmentalists are not quite as sure. Its ironic, said Michael J. Brune, executive director for the Rainforest Action Network. G.E. supplies parts for coal-fired plants, so its credit card offsets emissions it helps create.

Others worry about more direct conflicts of interest. At myearthrewards.com, the new cards Web site, consumers can calculate their carbon footprint and read tips for reducing it, like buying compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances, items that G.E. sells.

Moreover, G.E. is a big player in carbon offset projects, both directly as an investor and indirectly as a manufacturer of wind turbines and other alternative energy devices.

Kevin Walsh, managing director of renewable energy for GE Energy Financial Services, said that G.E. is supporting only projects that have been certified by third parties to be effective and that would not have happened without carbon offsets.

The joint venture first will buy offsets from projects that capture methane from landfills and coal mines. Later, it will add reforestation and alternative energy projects. GE Moneys credit card is just one of many customers for our pipeline of projects, Mr. Walsh said.

The card will have no annual fee and will charge annual interest of 12.99 to 18.99 percent, depending on the cardholders credit history.

G.E. insists that even small purchases add up. Twenty-five cents  or 1 percent of a $25 purchase  can offset a months emissions from a refrigerator. If someone charges $750 each month, 1 percent would come to $90 for the year  enough to offset air conditioning, driving and pretty much all of the activities that yield the 10 metric tons of greenhouse gases that G.E. says a consumer produces each year on average.

We are not sending a message that you can buy your way out of your environmental responsibility, said Lorraine Bolsinger, vice president of GE Ecomagination. Were offering another tool in the kit for reducing carbon footprints.

G.E. is keeping everything about the card as green as possible. It is spurning paper applications, insisting that people apply online or by phone. Although by law it must send paper bills when asked, it is encouraging cardholders to receive and pay their bills online. It plans no direct mail and will advertise on search engines like Google and on environmental sites like treehugger.com.

MasterCard, meanwhile, will sponsor the card on its Web site and may help G.E. set up arrangements to automatically pay recurring bills. They have a lot of options on the table, said Denise Walker, the executive who handles the G.E. account at MasterCard Worldwide.

The idea is not unique to G.E. There are similar credit cards available in some parts of Europe. Matt B. Arnold, a co-founder of Sustainable Finance, a consulting firm, said he knows of five small groups negotiating with banks to offer similar credit cards in the United States. G.E.s announcement will probably accelerate those projects, he said.

In May, a research group, Redefining Progress, formed a company called Cooler, which is to soon unveil climatecooler.com, a shopping site that has arranged for about 350 vendors, including Wal-Mart, to purchase carbon credits in amounts that offset the greenhouse gases resulting from the manufacture and use of items purchased through the site.

American Express may enter the fray, too. We are evaluating a number of opportunities, said Desiree Fish, an American Express spokeswoman. We will pick the one that resonates most with our customers.

Many environmentalists would prefer a card that rewards only the purchase of green products. But some welcome these cards for now. As Aron Cramer, the president of Business for Social Responsibility, put it, any effort that makes it easier for consumers to address climate change is a net positive.





Big question is, if these schmucks are "feeling short of cash" some months, WHY ARE THEY USING THE CREDIT CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?


JESUS WHAT A SCAM!
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2007, 06:08:44 AM »
Up here in Montana, they are grazing cattle right under the wind turbines.

We have a couple neighbors with totally solar powered houses, though one of them is still on the grid (they sell power back to the co-op).  High initial expense, but it seems to be working out okay.
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,460
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2007, 06:11:36 AM »
"We have a couple neighbors with totally solar powered houses, though one of them is still on the grid (they sell power back to the co-op).  High initial expense, but it seems to be working out okay."

THOSE PLUNDERING MASS MURDERING ENVIRONMENTAL RAPISTS!
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Vile Nylons

  • Guest
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2007, 07:17:59 AM »
Yup, there's an 8 X 12 shadow behind my solar panel too! Scum of the Earth, that's me.


Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2007, 07:18:56 AM »
Quote
Google "CNW Study Hybrid", and you'll find more than you care to read.
The CNW 'Study' is completely uncorroborated, contains faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review; IOW, it's bogus. The CNW 'Study' has been all but completely debunked, by Argonne National Laboratory, MIT, and others. It contains so much misinformation that articles about it have been retracted, and corrections published.  Even General Motors won't make any such absurd claim.

I don't even think Sean ("bigazz Escalade") Hannity and Rush are even citing this recycled garbage anymore.  Although, Rush was on a sputtering rant yesterday about the Prius.  Which is odd-he claims to be a big 'free market, give the customer what they want' proponent.

Do a google search on 'CNW debunked' and you'll get more information contradicting that 'study' than you'll want to read.

 

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2007, 08:36:11 AM »
I imagine that my old iron carraiges (16 and 30 years old) make less total impact on the environment than buying a new econo-car every two or three years.
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2007, 10:19:51 AM »
I wish we would build more nuclear plants.

I fully agree

Quote
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.

So wouldn't the added cost.  Let's say that every household south of the mason-dixon line decided to add solar power to the roof.  Southern climate gets substantially more usable sun than my frostbitten self in ND.

Installing a 'few panels' is actually a bad idea - there's a significant static cost to enable a building to operate on multiple power sources.  The inverter for one thing.  A 600 watt building infrastructure quality inverter costs $300 alone.

1.98 peak Kw solar, cost: $12,560, or $6.34 per watt of maximum capacity.  Price after california cash rebate, system rebate, $2k federal income tax credit: 7,241.94, or $3.66/watt.
34.65 peak Kw solar, cost: $186,339, $5.38 per watt.

Note: This is for the system alone, installation costs a 'mere' $1-$1.50 per watt.

Now place this against the nuclear power plant, which is claiming costs ranging from $1-2 per watt of capacity, with a proven capacity factor in the high 90s.  Solar will never break 50%, and 30-40% is unusually high.  Capacity factor is simply the actual production divided by peak production capability.

The little green book suggests 8-11% is average.

So, we're spending 4 times as much per peak watt capacity for a system that's likely to only produce a third of the actual power - making solar 12 times as expensive as nuclear.

If everybody who put solar panels on their roof invested into building a new nuclear plant, the return on their investment would cover their electrical bills with change left over as compared to any savings with the panels.

Just like biofuels, energy via solar panels only make sense with heavy subsidies or special circumstances(IE nowhere near the grid).

Quote
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.

No, hydroelectric can't do it all, matter of fact the enviromentalists want to blow up a number of dams due to the ecological damage they cause.  The USA has already dammed all the 'good' sites, as well as a number of sub-optimal sites.

Quote
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.

Yes, a mixture is good and all, it's just that compared to the 'green' technologies nuclear has them beat hand down, and thus I think it should be the majority answer.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2007, 10:44:01 AM »
I imagine that my old iron carraiges (16 and 30 years old) make less total impact on the environment than buying a new econo-car every two or three years.

Most certainly, especially if you consider CO2 to be pollution.

Now, it changes a bit if you don't consider CO2, but other pollutions instead.  At some point it'd be better to replace your old vehicles to gain the decreased emmissions of other, true, pollutants.

Just like how replacing inefficient windows with newer, more energy efficient windows can save you money over enough time.

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2007, 12:06:32 PM »
Firethorn, I'm thinking about the "pollution costs" of manufacturing and recycling all those cars that people go through during the same years that I go through just one.  And there's some real pollution in there, not just CO2.

We just don't drive that many miles, anyway.  I probably won't live long enough to see any savings on buying a new and smaller vehicle, not to mention you can't haul firewood in a Honda or Toyota. Wink
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2007, 01:34:51 PM »
Gewehr98
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
I still want backup. Or a retraction.  Either will do.  smiley

SomeKid

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2007, 01:58:30 PM »
Fire,

Starting where we agree. Yes, nuclear should be expanded. I used to live less than 10 miles from a reactor, for all I care they can build one a mile from me. Damn NIMBY people are the only reason it won't become the majority answer. I do think it should be expanded, but to mollify the NIMBYs, you can't make it the majority answer. Also, we agree (I think) on having a variety of answers. We already have some hydroelectric for example, and even if it cannot be expanded further, keeping what we have and running it at full capacity is a good option. Wind should be expanded, especially in the west. If cattle are willing to graze under them, the footprint becomes very small.

I don't know much about geothermal, haven't heard about it any in years. If the concept of getting energy from the Earths heat was feasible, I admit I would support it.

Now, for solar.

First, when I said a few, I meant blanket the roof. Just clarifying.

Second, cost. Right now it is a bad trade. However, I see long run potential for solar. If we spend the money now to develop the tech, we could put solar out there far cheaper. I am rarely optimistic, but I am regarding science. If you consider the massive increase in discovery in the last century, and project half that into the next, I can see great breakthroughs made.

So, what do I see foresee? If solar was developed, I could see solar panels becoming so well advanced they were used to augment a cars internal electrical supply. Imagine that for a moment, solar panels so efficient that they can keep a car running on a sunny day. Impossible today, but in a century or two I can see it happening. Long before then though, I could easily see them being placed on houses cheaply and greatly reducing the need for other methods.

It sounds pie in the sky, but just keep in mind how far computers have come in the past few decades, let alone other advances. Someday in the future, I can see solar being the dominant form of energy production, but we need to keep the research going today. I don't deny for a second that right now solar isn't the best method, but then again, all advances take research. I hope they keep working on it.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2007, 04:41:09 PM »
Gewehr98
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
I still want backup. Or a retraction.  Either will do.  smiley
I am not sure about the Suburban, I think I saw some numbers a while back on this site that said a small engine economy car is less damaging from production through use than the hybrid.  The small engine car requires much less energy and pollution to make and its lesser fuel economy is not big enough to offset for the hybrid to make up the higher initial impact.  I am not sure if that carries over to Suburbans or Hummers.  The article I remember mentioned lithium mining and such had a pretty high environmental impact.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,460
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2007, 04:46:00 PM »
"I used to live less than 10 miles from a reactor, for all I care they can build one a mile from me."

I used to feel that way.

I grew up less than 15 miles from a nuclear reactor.

You may have heard it mentioned once or twice.

Three Mile Island.

Nothing like watching your town turn into a ghost town and wondering that if you have leave if you'll ever be able to come home again.

I'm not as hot on nuclear as I used to be.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Renewable energy wrecks environment
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2007, 05:00:58 PM »
No backup or retraction warranted. It's a feel-good technology, needing only a built-in carbon credit printer to be complete. Talk to me in 5 years when the nickel-metal-hydride battery pack in that Toyota Prius (called Pious in some circles) has to be changed out.  (How come nobody wants to talk about that, hmmm?) My son's Suburban will be on the road long after the Prius has been made into Chinese kitchen utensils for sale at Walmart. That is, unless one somehow gets all those Toyota hybrids to go for 200,000 miles or more. (Easy for a Suburban, Tahoe, or Hummer, built on a real truck chassis) Then, after 4 battery changes, it just might amortize the R&D energy that went into making it, as well as the subsidies (aka, tax credits) offered to manufacturers and buyers.  Think a Prius plus whatever it was recycled into while the GM truck chassis continues to roll over that timeframe.

And when the next version of the Prius hits the road, it's rumored to have lithium-ion batteries.  They're already nervous about the current batch, but when the Li-Ion model goes public, you'll see fire departments giving them plenty of room during emergency responses.  A main power relay that cuts out when the airbags deploy isn't going to make them sweat any less.

You want an environmentally clean car that covers the bases from manufacture to fuel consumption?  Get a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic, or better yet, a Rabbit or Jetta diesel.  The Prius drivers I've talked to complain that they have to drive like a granny, or else the MPG isn't so wunnerful, and certainly not close to what Toyota claims. 60mpg?  No. Try 45mpg, or worse. The car's a slug, too, compared to its fuel-efficient gasoline counterparts. Interesting test drive here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA

There are two engines and a battery pack, adding a lot of weight and extra parts to break. Add the huge extra cost, and yes, I think that the Prius is a good idea horribly executed. Idolize what you want, but they need to do more work on the hybrid idea. At least install a carbon credit printer on the dash, and re-tune the horn to squawk, "Feel-good, Feel-good". 

In the meantime, instead of spending 20k+ on a Prius, one could spend 5k on a used economy car, and spend 15k in a donation to an environmental organization...

"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"