August 28th, 2010
A Wind blows across a hill, has done since time inmomorial, that wind is part of the global weather system, so someone comes along and builds a wind farm on the hill, most of the energy is removed from the wind, what effect does that have on the global weather system?
Wave power, many years ago it was demonstrated that wave farms caused or increased costal erosion at a point some distance from the "farm".
Geothermal, taking heat from the earths crust, what will be the long term effect of this accelerated cooling?
Solar, the production cost of photovoltaic cells has been questioned elswhere but what about heat extraction. placing large solar powered boilers in the desert may seem like a good idea but what are the effects on the flora, fauna and geology of removing that heat source?
maybe the sun will go out before the effects are apreciable but has anyone ever done any reasearch in to the down side of "green" energy?
I agree that the downsides of "green energy" should be researched. Let’s just make sure we’re not doing it to somehow prove that there isn’t a need for green energy.
Continuing with oil production without looking into alternatives is certainly a mistake. Whether or not there are downsides to green energy still doesn’t address the problems that an oil dependent economy poses.
Perhaps one green alternative that is foolproof is for everyone to consume a little less, buy locally, recycle (and by that I don’t just mean thowing your plastic bottles in a recycling bin but actually reusing materials) and do what they can to make less of a global footprint.
Posted in Green Wind Energy | 2 Comments »
August 28th, 2010
YES! Nuclear is the most "Green" energy choice for most locations. Here are some Pos and Cons:
PROS
!. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else’s problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth’s crust (about the same as tin)
4. Economical – operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable – Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors.
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record.
CONS
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.
4. High cost of personnel.
5. Security concerns,
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100’s of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.
Hydro: Only viable in specific locations, dams change the local environment significantly and are dangerous.
Wind: Only a specific range of wind speed is currently efficient for producing power, takes huge amounts of land space, unreliable for base load power – needs a backup anyway.
Solar: Only viable when the sun is out, toxic chemicals in photo-cells and batteries. Takes huge amount of space per Mw.
Posted in Green Alternative energy | 13 Comments »
August 27th, 2010
Transforming a kernel of corn into fuel-grade ethanol is nothing new for biofuel producers like Green Plains Renewable Energy.
Broadcast Date: Oct. 23, 2009
Duration : 0:5:49
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: agriculture, biofuels, crops, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, ethanol, Iowa, Iowa Public Television, IowaPublicTV, IPTV, iptv.org, Market to Market, renewable energy
Posted in Green Renewable Energy | No Comments »
August 27th, 2010
Acterra launched Green@Home, a project to help Palo Alto citizens lower their energy use and their carbon emissions. Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto kindly opened her home for a test run of the event. April 2007, Palo Alto, CA.
Duration : 0:5:55
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Acterra, Alto, carbon, emissions, ENERGY, Green@Home, Kishimoto, Palo, savings
Posted in Green Wind Energy | No Comments »
August 27th, 2010
Get more information about algae as a source for non-polluting bio-fuel at TheAutoChannel.com. The search for alternative energy sources and fuels has certainly uncovered some surprising and exciting results. One of the North American research and development companies to be leading the algae charge is Valcent Products, Inc., of Vancouver, Canada.
Duration : 0:3:43
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: algae, alternate, bio-diesel, fuels
Posted in Green Alternative energy | 23 Comments »
August 27th, 2010
Mirrors through a Fresnel Lens Super Beam. This answers the question, “can you get a super powered beam by concentrating several mirrors to one point through a Fresnel Lens. The same results would be expected from a parabolic mirror. The further away from the lens, the closer the beams are concentrated together because the angle changes.
Duration : 0:1:17
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: alternative, ENERGY, FRESNEL, GREENPOWERSCIENCE, LENS, POWER, SOLAR
Posted in Green Solar Energy | 25 Comments »
August 18th, 2010
Ok so we need to make a project to summarize the 3 main renewable energy sources, but we can’t think of creative name. We’d tryed to make some but it always ended up with using the words green, renewable, energy, sources, and technology, and it always made the title seem generic. can you guys help me out with creating a creative title?
Thanks
Hephaestus, Helios, and Aeolus: An Ancient Pantheon for a New Age
It’s going to make your audience stretch, but if you take the time to google them you’ll see they fit. You can’t go wrong invoking Greek mythology.
Posted in Green Renewable Energy | 3 Comments »
August 18th, 2010
It is lot on a deed restricted land, a golf course and front of the lot faces east.
Here are some links to help you…….
Also check into the local building codes (obvious, I know) because some locations have restrictions on things, like straw bale buildings.
Posted in Green Solar Energy | 5 Comments »
August 18th, 2010
All it would take is about $10-20 a month for 10 years 50% of energy could be produced from clean sources like wind and solar. But human behavior can be persuaded through rules. One of our government’s innovations is compliance standards. Check it out.
http://www.compliance.gov/
You need to lok deeper at the numbers.
Besides – you are talking about a 10-20% increase in energy costs. This translates into a similar increase in costs for businesses. Thses costs will have to be passed on to the consumer – which means 1970’s style ’stagflation.’
Another issue is that althenative energy has a perfect 100% track record of failure in terms of producing energy at a cost the consumer can afford. How much money are you willing to bet on the assumption that history will not repeat itself?
Posted in Green Wind Energy | 23 Comments »
August 18th, 2010
No since the majority of the country still burns stuff for there energy needs they are very polluted and suffer greatly during the summer seasons.
Any gains they have for not using oil is trumped by the small particle released while burning wood, coal and other stuff.
Posted in Green Alternative energy | 2 Comments »