4 ms·

> With non-renewable energy production, the situation is literally "pick your poison." Isn't that true of renewable energy production at scale, too? Solar pan

by zeveb 11y ago

> With non-renewable energy production, the situation is literally "pick your poison." Isn't that true of renewable energy production at scale, too? Solar panels require some very nasty industrial processes to produce, wind more than decimates bird populations, tidal affects sealife and the seafloor, hydroelectric affects fish (and poorly-maintained dams can destroy cities and regions …). I think it might actually be unavoidable: any process which generates the amount of energy required to sustain human life at scale will … be responsible for handling a huge amount of energy at scale. edit: I'm unaware of issues with goethermal, but a) it's not possible most places; b) the fact that I'm unaware of them doesn't imply that they don't exist.

patall 11y ago
Well, another big issue with (current?) solar panels is that they are highly problematic in case of fire (fire brigade with the waterhose closes the electric circuit with the grounded panel) And geothermal has more than once been suspected to be responsible for more or less immidiate earth-quakes. Choose your risks on yourself...
mcv 11y ago
The decimation of bird populations by wind turbines is somewhat exaggerated. Wind turbines do kill birds, but not remotely as many as powerlines, windows, cats or cars do: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science... So while it is an issue, it's not remotely as much of an issue as other technologies that everybody takes for granted and nobody complains about. I wonder if the same might be true for tidal: that existing sea traffic and fishing might have a far bigger impact on sea life than energy generation would have.
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  Similarly, coal-burning power plants put more radioactive materials into the atmosphere in a year than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, but nobody worries about that because coal power is old and we're all used to it. Ironically, the people opposing the construction of new nuclear plants are implicitly encouraging the construction/refurbishment of coal plants, and thus increasing the amount of radiation in the atmosphere.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Well, people worry about coal plants primarily because of the CO2, and secondarily because of soot, dust and other pollutants. I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants, though. Most people who oppose one, also oppose the other.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants That's exactly what people are supporting when they oppose nuclear power. Rejecting nuclear doesn't provide power, so it's a de facto vote for staying with the status quo of coal. Until solar/wind can operate fully without a natural gas backup, it's still vaporware for the base load. Maybe that will change in the future, and solar/wind should obviously fill some (non-base load) power generation needs, but until that happens we generate power with either nuclear or carbon. Pick one or other; not choosing leaves the choice to the market which is always going to choose whichever is cheaper, which is coal because they externalize the cost to human health and the environment.
      - mcv 11y ago
        Natural gas is not remotely as dirty as coal (though it still produces CO2, obviously). And I don't think we're going to get rid of gas anytime soon, particularly because it adapts more quickly to changes in demand than anything else. I disagree that opposing nuclear means you cannot oppose coal. You can, and many do. I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar, not towards nuclear, but I do agree that it's way too early to close existing nuclear plants as long as they work well. The German post-Fukushima plan to close their nuclear plants is folly; they should be closing their coal plants first. But nuclear plants are expensive, and I think Uranium/Plutonium fission can be transitionary tech at best. The primary target for investments should be on cleaner tech, and on better networks and storage to deal with fluctuations in supply. That is absolutely an issue, but it's an issue that's being worked on.
        11y ago
Tiktaalik 11y ago
> hydroelectric affects fish (and poorly-maintained dams can destroy cities and regions …). Moreso than that, things that affect fish, inevitably affect people. The flooding caused by dams increases mercury in the water which works its way up the food chain. In British Columbia they are currently investigating whether or not they've poisoned an entire river system that people depend on for food. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hydro-to-test-fish-for-mercury-after-first-nations-voice-concerns/article24411145/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hydr...

by zeveb 11y ago

patall 11y ago

Well, another big issue with (current?) solar panels is that they are highly problematic in case of fire (fire brigade with the waterhose closes the electric circuit with the grounded panel) And geothermal has more than once been suspected to be responsible for more or less immidiate earth-quakes. Choose your risks on yourself...

mcv 11y ago

The decimation of bird populations by wind turbines is somewhat exaggerated. Wind turbines do kill birds, but not remotely as many as powerlines, windows, cats or cars do: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science... So while it is an issue, it's not remotely as much of an issue as other technologies that everybody takes for granted and nobody complains about. I wonder if the same might be true for tidal: that existing sea traffic and fishing might have a far bigger impact on sea life than energy generation would have.

blakeyrat 11y ago
Similarly, coal-burning power plants put more radioactive materials into the atmosphere in a year than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, but nobody worries about that because coal power is old and we're all used to it. Ironically, the people opposing the construction of new nuclear plants are implicitly encouraging the construction/refurbishment of coal plants, and thus increasing the amount of radiation in the atmosphere.
- mcv 11y ago
  Well, people worry about coal plants primarily because of the CO2, and secondarily because of soot, dust and other pollutants. I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants, though. Most people who oppose one, also oppose the other.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants That's exactly what people are supporting when they oppose nuclear power. Rejecting nuclear doesn't provide power, so it's a de facto vote for staying with the status quo of coal. Until solar/wind can operate fully without a natural gas backup, it's still vaporware for the base load. Maybe that will change in the future, and solar/wind should obviously fill some (non-base load) power generation needs, but until that happens we generate power with either nuclear or carbon. Pick one or other; not choosing leaves the choice to the market which is always going to choose whichever is cheaper, which is coal because they externalize the cost to human health and the environment.
    - mcv 11y ago
      Natural gas is not remotely as dirty as coal (though it still produces CO2, obviously). And I don't think we're going to get rid of gas anytime soon, particularly because it adapts more quickly to changes in demand than anything else. I disagree that opposing nuclear means you cannot oppose coal. You can, and many do. I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar, not towards nuclear, but I do agree that it's way too early to close existing nuclear plants as long as they work well. The German post-Fukushima plan to close their nuclear plants is folly; they should be closing their coal plants first. But nuclear plants are expensive, and I think Uranium/Plutonium fission can be transitionary tech at best. The primary target for investments should be on cleaner tech, and on better networks and storage to deal with fluctuations in supply. That is absolutely an issue, but it's an issue that's being worked on.
      - 11y ago

Tiktaalik 11y ago

> hydroelectric affects fish (and poorly-maintained dams can destroy cities and regions …). Moreso than that, things that affect fish, inevitably affect people. The flooding caused by dams increases mercury in the water which works its way up the food chain. In British Columbia they are currently investigating whether or not they've poisoned an entire river system that people depend on for food. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hydro-to-test-fish-for-mercury-after-first-nations-voice-concerns/article24411145/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hydr...