0

you got to be kidding you honestly think greenhouse gases is a joke. people that dont believe that greenhouse gases such as CO2 cause heat insulation in the atmosphere dont know enough about chemistry to be talking about it.

Let me guess you think the trees will take care of it.

I know all about that. I also know that the effect is relatively small and certainly NOT causing any "global warming" as meant by the climate alarmists.
In fact if you check the real data (rather than the massaged stuff presented by Michael Moore and Greenpeace) you see clearly that temperature changes predate CO2 concentration changes throughout history.
You also note that the warmest period in recent history was the 1930s, when CO2 concentrations were a lot lower than they are now.
You notice that the earth is cooling down rather than heating up and has been for some years, despite rising CO2 levels.
You notice that 2000 years ago things were conciderably warmer than they are now, despite there being no "evil CO2 barfing cars" and powerstations pumping out the stuff.
You find that in the 1970s the same people who are now screaming "global warming" were screaming "global cooling" and proclaiming the next ice age.
You notice that the WWF is now blaming higher CO2 levels for the unusually cold winter Australia is going through.

0

There is already a thread talking about global warming.

Since most of our energy comes from the sun, it would make sense to go for solar, wind and bio energy sources.

Nuclear energy is simply too expensive and unsafe. No investor in the world would give you a cent of credit. That's why there are quite a few folks with degrees in nuclear physics that are sweeping floors.

0

nuclear is far safer than anything else. There's only been one accident in 60 years where radiation was not contained, and that was a deliberate failure in a reactor of a design that was already outdated and scrapped in the civilised world.

The only reason it's expensive are the idiotic and counterproductive "regulations" surrounding the storage and disposal of nuclear waste, most of which could be reused after processing as fuel for other nuclear power stations, something declared illegal on the basis of fearmongering by ecoweenies who want to see us all back cowering in caves when the sun goes down (after of course making sure no wildlife wants the cave for the night, nasty humans shouldn't evict nice bears from their caves).

btw, a lot of energy companies are looking to build new nuclear power stations. It's the idiot politicians and their cronies in the ecoweenie movement that are blocking it for no reasons except more fearmongering and political lies.
But that too is changing as politicians are finding that voters are starting to realise that without nuclear power there will soon be massive blackouts as energy supplies from Russia and Saudi are far from reliable.

0

Man you really sound like a "weenie" with that one sided, closed mind of yours. no one has said that there should be only one source of energy used just that radioactive material is not, nor will it ever be safe.

Do you honestly think that caring about animals and the environment is a bad thing? You sound like an ignorant old man stuck in his ways who, if he had it his way, would kill everything to make way for the wasteful energy needs of humans by way of nuclear plant construction and radioactive waste disposal sites. Man, some people just dont get it. We use twice as much energy as we need and more then half of that could be produced by renewable resources.
GDd Denmit why do poeple have to be so f;n closed minded.

0

there's a difference between "caring about the environment" and blindly following the religion of "Global Warming" as preached by its high priest, Al Gore.

I do really care, which is precisely why I do NOT subscribe to the entire "Global Warming" nonsense, which I KNOW to be fundamentally flawed and just a big pack of lies.

Those who are believers in the church of gore do the environment a disservice by throwing away massive amounts of money on pipedreams, destroying economies to the point where caring about the environment will become a luxury people can no longer afford.

0

If opposites attract, why doesn't an electron simply combine with a proton to make some energy?

The answer to that is pretty deep are you sure you want to know?
first though - Mathematically, if you subtract a proton from a neutron you will get an electron + some energy which will be enough to put the electron in orbit.

Well, here goes:

If the electron were sitting still at a certain distance away from the nucleus, then the coulomb force would pull the electron into the nucleus. Since the electron is moving with a given velocity, call it V, then the coloumb force causes centripetal acceleration towards the nucleus. Remember, in centrifugal motion there is no centripetal velocity, only acceleration. Therefore, this combination of the tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration causes the electron to orbit around the nucleus.

Also, consider the p-orbital in an atom. If we solve schrodinger's 1-D equation for the n = 2 orbital, we find that the electron is allowed to exist anywhere except very close to the nucleus or very far away from it (at the end of the orbital radius).

Remember, however that this is only the one dimensional equation. If you solved the 1-D schrodinger equation for n=1, or for your hydrogen atom for example, we find that the electron can exist anywhere except the end of the orbital radius. So from the result it would seem that the electron is actually allowed to move closer and closer to the nucleus. This is not the case since the waveform for the n = 1 solution allows the electron to exist in a hollow sphere, or a 2-manifold. If you were to solve the 3-D schrodinger equation for n = 1, then you would get a wave form similar to the solution for 1-D at n=2; in other words if you solve the 3-D equation, you would find that the probability of finding the electron as you approach the nucleus decreases to zero exponentially.

Outside of the nucleus of an atom, the neutron will decay into a proton, electron, and an antineutrino withing 15 minutes.

0

with regards to grimjack - WOW! thats all I can say WOW

with regards to jwenting - i dint think al gore is exactly running or did he create the idea of global warming. I dont, and never did care about al gore. why do you always go right to global warming, thats not all there is to the environment. You seem to be very much against any protection of our ecosystems. regardless i dont think this is really going anywhere so ill just say this: be respectful of the fragility of the balances around you.

back to the purpose of this thread ENERGY

0

...... There's only been one accident in 60 years where radiation was not contained ......

I assume you are referring to the nuclear accident next door to your country, in Belgium.

0

If the electron were sitting still at a certain distance away from the nucleus, then the coulomb force would pull the electron into the nucleus. Since the electron is moving with a given velocity, call it V, then the coloumb force causes centripetal acceleration towards the nucleus. Remember, in centrifugal motion there is no centripetal velocity, only acceleration. Therefore, this combination of the tangential velocity and centripetal acceleration causes the electron to orbit around the nucleus.

Also, consider the p-orbital in an atom. If we solve schrodinger's 1-D equation for the n = 2 orbital, we find that the electron is allowed to exist anywhere except very close to the nucleus or very far away from it (at the end of the orbital radius).

Remember, however that this is only the one dimensional equation. If you solved the 1-D schrodinger equation for n=1, or for your hydrogen atom for example, we find that the electron can exist anywhere except the end of the orbital radius. So from the result it would seem that the electron is actually allowed to move closer and closer to the nucleus. This is not the case since the waveform for the n = 1 solution allows the electron to exist in a hollow sphere, or a 2-manifold. If you were to solve the 3-D schrodinger equation for n = 1, then you would get a wave form similar to the solution for 1-D at n=2; in other words if you solve the 3-D equation, you would find that the probability of finding the electron as you approach the nucleus decreases to zero exponentially.

Very nuclear GrimJack, great stuff! Thank you for giving an answer one can use!

0

I assume you are referring to the nuclear accident next door to your country, in Belgium.

No, to that little mishap in the Ukraine...

Nuclear energy is safe as long as you leave it to engineers to run the plants and set policies rather than politicians and greenies.

I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal or oil fired plant, and especially a windfarm.

0

No, to that little mishap in the Ukraine...

Nuclear energy is safe as long as you leave it to engineers to run the plants and set policies rather than politicians and greenies.

I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal or oil fired plant, and especially a windfarm.

Could you elaborate on that? "especially a windfarm" - how is that worse than coal or oil fired?

0

I do not know much about physic. However, I have recently read wikipedia about "Environmental effects of wind power". It points out a few disadvantages of windfarm. I will quote only the important parts:

  1. Wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, as do fossil fuel power sources. Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial carbon dioxide emissions "pay back" is within about 9 months of operation for off shore turbines.

  2. Unlike fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, which circulate or evaporate large amounts of water for cooling, wind turbines do not need water to generate electricity. However, leaking lubricating oil or hydraulic fluid running down turbine blades may be scattered over the surrounding area, in some cases contaminating drinking water areas.

  3. One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area. In a similar way, there are concerns of micro-climate change, in particular for urban areas nearby, due to changed airflow and reduced wind power.

  4. As the number of offshore wind farms increase and move further into deeper water, the question arises if the ocean noise that is generated due to mechanical motion of the turbines and other vibrations which can be transmitted via the tower structure to the sea, will become significant enough to harm sea mammals. Tests carried out in Denmark for shallow installations showed the levels were only significant up to a few hundred metres. However, sound injected into deeper water will travel much further and will be more likely to impact bigger creatures like whales which tend to use lower frequencies than porpoises and seals. A recent study found that wind farms add 80–110 dB to the existing low-frequency ambient noise (under 400 Hz), which could impact baleen whales communication and stress levels, and possibly prey distribution.

  5. Blade failures and falling ice have also accounted for a number of deaths and injuries. Deaths to members of the public include a parachutist colliding with a turbine and small aircraft crashing into support structures. Other public fatalities have been blamed on collisions with transport vehicles and motorists distracted by the sight and shadow flicker of wind turbines along highways.
    ....
    ....
    When a turbine's brake fails, the turbine can spin freely until it disintegrates or catches fire. This is mitigated in most modern designs by aero brakes, variable pitch blades, and the ability to turn the nacelle to face out of the wind. Turbine blades may fail spontaneously due to manufacturing flaws. Lightning strikes are a common problem, also causing rotor blade damage and fires. When ejected, pieces of broken blade and ice can be thrown hundreds of meters away. Although no member of the public has been killed by a malfunctioning turbine, there have been close calls, including injury by falling ice. Large pieces of debris, up to several tons, have dropped in populated areas, residential properties, and roads, damaging cars and homes.
    ....
    ....
    Often turbine fires cannot be extinguished because of the height, and are left to burn themselves out. In the process, they generate toxic fumes and can scatter flaming debris over a wide area, starting secondary fires below. Several turbine-ignited fires have burned hundreds of acres of vegetation each, and one burned 800 square kilometres (200,000 acres) of Australian National Park.
    ....

Link: Wikipedia :: Environmental effects of wind power.

0

ya and who wrote that? It doesn't sound like a professional environmental assessment to me.

Even so, all of these are small in comparison to other sources of energy.

Now go look up the effects of other types of energy sources.

1

ya and who wrote that? It doesn't sound like a professional environmental assessment to me.

I have provided the link to you. If you are curious where is that come from, you can check the references of that article. Anyway, I just share what I have came across so I don't dare to make any comparision to other sources of engery.

Votes + Comments
I agree and nice person to talk to on IRC
0

he's an econutter. He discredits anything that doesn't match the official greenie party line based on the fact that it doesn't fit that party line...

0

Let me look at this a little

Wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution, as do fossil fuel power sources. Wind power plants consume resources in manufacturing and construction. During manufacture of the wind turbine, steel, concrete, aluminum and other materials will have to be made and transported using energy-intensive processes, generally using fossil energy sources. The initial carbon dioxide emissions "pay back" is within about 9 months of operation for off shore turbines.

Okay, this looks pretty good. The output could be improved by using only recycled aluminum (extraction is the real energy consumer there).

Unlike fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, which circulate or evaporate large amounts of water for cooling, wind turbines do not need water to generate electricity. However, leaking lubricating oil or hydraulic fluid running down turbine blades may be scattered over the surrounding area, in some cases contaminating drinking water areas.

This can be balanced against coal-produced contamination which goes into the air and contaminates a far wider area. Or against dams which destroy down-stream ecologies. Or against nulclear which produces down-time contamination. And we could always learn to tighten the seals.

One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area. In a similar way, there are concerns of micro-climate change, in particular for urban areas nearby, due to changed airflow and reduced wind power.

Lets balance this against the release of heated water into the atmosphere - most of the pro-/anti-ClimateChange argumenst focus on CO2 while atmospheric water vapor is a much stronger influence on Climate Change. I want to point out the entropic point again - it takes cold water out of the environment and puts warm water back in (shout out to Stinkies in San Antonio, TX - my favorite swimming hole in the 1960s).

As the number of offshore wind farms increase and move further into deeper water, the question arises if the ocean noise that is generated due to mechanical motion of the turbines and other vibrations which can be transmitted via the tower structure to the sea, will become significant enough to harm sea mammals. Tests carried out in Denmark for shallow installations showed the levels were only significant up to a few hundred metres. However, sound injected into deeper water will travel much further and will be more likely to impact bigger creatures like whales which tend to use lower frequencies than porpoises and seals. A recent study found that wind farms add 80–110 dB to the existing low-frequency ambient noise (under 400 Hz), which could impact baleen whales communication and stress levels, and possibly prey distribution.

Well, this could be ameliorated by using tidal generators which could offer different problems. It seems to me that sound/vibration dampening could be use here, maybe even used to add to energy production (see ).

Blade failures and falling ice have also accounted for a number of deaths and injuries. Deaths to members of the public include a parachutist colliding with a turbine and small aircraft crashing into support structures. Other public fatalities have been blamed on collisions with transport vehicles and motorists distracted by the sight and shadow flicker of wind turbines along highways.

Parachutists, skydivers, paragliders crash into everything including the ground. People die in traffic accidents all the time. Motorist talk on their phones, eat food, kiss their dogs, have oral sex, pick their noses - all while driving.

When a turbine's brake fails, the turbine can spin freely until it disintegrates or catches fire. This is mitigated in most modern designs by aero brakes, variable pitch blades, and the ability to turn the nacelle to face out of the wind. Turbine blades may fail spontaneously due to manufacturing flaws. Lightning strikes are a common problem, also causing rotor blade damage and fires. When ejected, pieces of broken blade and ice can be thrown hundreds of meters away. Although no member of the public has been killed by a malfunctioning turbine, there have been close calls, including injury by falling ice. Large pieces of debris, up to several tons, have dropped in populated areas, residential properties, and roads, damaging cars and homes.

Interesting, since they are talking probabilities were any numbers available? And can these numbers be compared to similar numbers for other utilities?

Often turbine fires cannot be extinguished because of the height, and are left to burn themselves out. In the process, they generate toxic fumes and can scatter flaming debris over a wide area, starting secondary fires below. Several turbine-ignited fires have burned hundreds of acres of vegetation each, and one burned 800 square kilometres (200,000 acres) of Australian National Park

Did any of these turbines have fire-suppression equipment? How high are the probabilities for fire-related events and would the inclusion of such equipment be justifiable.

All in all, when compared to the alternative sources of energy, these objections do not really rise above background noise.

0

Hey, JW - look what I found on broadcasting energy. "A former NASA scientist has used radio waves to transmit solar power a distance of 92 miles (148 km) between two Hawaiian islands, an achievement that he says proves the technology exists to beam solar power from satellites back to Earth" It cost a million dollars and only transmitted 180 watts but heck the Wright brothers' first flight was shorter that the length of the 747 body.

0

Google has been locating its server farms near hydroelectric sources because the dams generally have excess energy (during low demand, night hours - the water still flows), there is little line loss, and Google is pretty much guaranteed 'green' power. Well, this latest development is pretty d*mned exciting and a little scary - they are bonding with GE to create a 'smart' grid.

0

Hey jw, that sounds like exactly what your doing with everything that doesn't kill the environment. And btw im no econutter im merely trying open your very closed mind.

Im sick of people assuming that because you care about the env a little, your some sort of "greenie". Well you Jw, can shove it right up your closed mind.

0

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has to shut down for two months. There was a large helium leak and they discovered it when everbody started talking like Donald Duck. No science when you act like a duck!

0

Scientific American Magazine
A Solar Grand Plan
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

I think it would be better to store it as hydrogen (as in cracking water) to support fuel cell technology and (sort of) killing 2 birds with one stone.

0

Your right grim that would probably be the best storage method for excess energy. The only problem i see with that would be the conversion efficiency.

I dont know how efficient the electricity to hydrogen conversion is, but id imagine there is fair bit of loss through heat in the water.

0

Ive been doing a fair amount of reading on the subject, and it seems that were damned if we do and were damned if we dont. :)

0

I think it would be better to store it as hydrogen (as in cracking water) to support fuel cell technology and (sort of) killing 2 birds with one stone.

Creating hydrogen using the DC generated by solar cells is highly inefficient. Also hydrogen would take up the largest volume of any gas, is dangerous to handle and difficult to store.

0

With Chrysler and GM coming out with plugin electric cars by 2010, I wonder how high the price of electricty will go? The oil companies have set a price gauging model to follow.

I read that with the Chevy Volt the Lithium-Ion-Battery alone will cost around $25,000 and most likely will need to be replaced in 3 to 4 years of use.

0

Consider this: Where I live we make electricity with a dam. The dam was built in the 1950s and has been delivering current for over 50 years. Do you think it's paid for by now?

So why do I still have to pay for electricity? And at a much higher rate than ever?

0

Consider this: Where I live we make electricity with a dam. The dam was built in the 1950s and has been delivering current for over 50 years. Do you think it's paid for by now?

So why do I still have to pay for electricity? And at a much higher rate than ever?

Elementary Watson, supply and demand.

Besides, a little old dam wouldn't supply enough energy to drive even a thousand electric cars. To put this into the proper context, just in the Los Angeles area alone there are over a million cars on the road at any given time. Those poor folks suffer from an overloaded electrical system and brownouts already.

A one hour commute would use up at least 50 kwh of electricity. At the usual 110 volt supply and a 75% battery efficiency you would have to charge your car with a current of 30 amps for 20 hours. At the present $0.10 per kwh it would cost you about $7.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.