Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
The Russian Hare

20 countries commit to phase out coal by 2030

42 posts in this topic

Just now, toast said:

Windpower.

Windpower might have the lightest environmental impact...no large scale mining, no radioactive waste, no flooding...just materials we use for every day construction. Some hippies might complain about the impact on local bird populations but on it's worst day, those big windmills are looking pretty good. Not sure about cost vs. benefit but....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
6 minutes ago, FLOMBIE said:

"Cleaner" is the wrong word. It's a euphemism. More efficient is more accurate. And who cares if the rest of the world dumps it as well? 

Yes, we have to improve our ways to collect renewable energy, so it can satisfy our basic needs. That is a more interesting route than making coal more efficient. 

Cleaner is better is it not.  Euphemism or not it stands. You want to call it more efficient sure lets go with that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Silver Thong said:

Cleaner is better is it not.  Euphemism or not it stands. You want to call it more efficient sure lets go with that.  

No, it doesn't stand. It's still polluting the F out of our environment. We are talking about 35% efficiency and 45% efficiency here. That doesn't mean we should stop there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Not sure about cost vs. benefit but....

A few years ago I have spoken to a project manager of a German windmill manufacturer and asked exactly that question.  He gave me an example for an investment of 3M Euros, which included the property, a revenue analysis of the location, the device, the build and 1 year maintenace. He said that the monthly return is in between 150K and 250K, depending on the wind/weather. He added "everyone who wins 3M in the lottery and dont buy a windmill, is a moron".

Edited by toast
#@%& !!!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toast said:

A few years ago I have spoken to a project manager of a German windmill manufacturer and asked exaxtly that question.  He gave me an example for an investment of 3M Euros, which included the property, a revenue analysis of the location, the device, the build and 1 year maintenace. He said that the monthly return is in between 150K and 250K, depending on the wind/weather. He added "everyone who wins 3M in the lottery and dont buy a windmill, is a moron".

That's a strong endorsement. I have noticed more windmills going up around Southern Alberta...they aren't an eyesore, either. Another alternative could be underwater generators that use ocean currents. Place a generator farm somewhat close to the shoreline and away we go. Maybe couple that with a windmill farm a few miles away.

Ocean Turbines

Quote

Other companies, such as General Electric, have attempted to adapt wind turbines for use in the ocean, but these are designed to capture low-density energy carried by air, not high-density energy from ocean currents. Crowd Energy aims to take a different approach.

Janca and his colleagues developed a system called the "ocean energy turbine" that rotates much more slowly than a wind turbine, but generates a lot more rotational force, or torque.

Crowd Energy's turbine consists of three sets of blades that resemble window shutters. These structures are designed to close when water flows in the same direction the blades are moving and open when water moves in the opposite direction. The force of the water turns the blades and makes the shaft rotate, and a generator converts this rotational energy into electricity. These turbines could supply coastal communities, and possibly feed into inland areas as well.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many acres of solar panels would it take to power New York City?  Same question with Wind mills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Yeah I know that technology but maintenance of these units is quite expensive and the number of locations, compared to windmills, is limited. But where it fits it should be made in addition.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TonopahRick said:

How many acres of solar panels would it take to power New York City?  Same question with Wind mills?

Whats the electric energy consumption of NY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea of the energy consumption of NY, but as large as NY is with millions of people and their work places, etc. not to mention some of the transportation such as subways I feel it would take an extremely large area of land to build all the wind farms and solar farms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TonopahRick said:

I have no idea of the energy consumption of NY, but as large as NY is with millions of people and their work places, etc. not to mention some of the transportation such as subways I feel it would take an extremely large area of land to build all the wind farms and solar farms.

I tried to find the total consumption, but I came across this:

Quote
  • In 2016, for the first time, New York obtained more than 1 million megawatthours of electricity from solar generation, and 84% of that power came from distributed sources such as rooftop solar panels.
  • New York obtained 24% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2016; the state's Reforming the Energy Vision plan aims to raise the renewable contribution to 50% by 2030.
  • The 2.4-gigawatt Robert Moses Niagara hydroelectric power plant is the fourth-largest hydroelectric power plant in the United States.  In 2016, New York produced more hydroelectric power than any other state east of the Rocky Mountains.
  • Nearly half of New York's electricity-generating units can burn either fuel oil or natural gas, and state regulators require them to be ready to switch to fuel oil if the natural gas supply is constrained.
  • To curb air pollution, in 2012 New York became the first northeastern state to require that all heating oil be ultra-low sulfur diesel.

This is about the whole state of New York. 

They are indeed going the route of using renewable energies in New York, which are already having a notable impact. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TonopahRick said:

I have no idea of the energy consumption of NY,

Brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like NY is working in the right direction.  Oh, and thanks for the info on NY.

Edited by TonopahRick
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 11:33 AM, toast said:

Whats the electric energy consumption of NY?

It takes three nuclear power plants and one is about to be shut down.  I don't want to be a pessimist but electricity to some will become sorely missed due to I want to save the world with no solution as how. I see global warming happening but not today, Minus 18 C last night and my truck didn't want to start.  It would be great if we could ride bikes or walk but that will not happen. I will have to look into this, If 30 people take the bus how much does that pollute and if 100 people take transit  such as a subway what does that cost as far as environment. With out using fossil fuels we would have neither. Be careful what you wish for. To wipe out coal might meen your water treatment plant can't afford to give you clean water.  I'm all for clean energy but I won't cut off my head because I have a headache.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 11:04 AM, toast said:

Windpower.

nope, it does not work that way. Pretend all one want's we can get off fossil fuels in 20 years is a myth and a money grab by the left that feel they can save us as they fly in private planes and drive Suv's or go on cruise ships and think they are saving the world.  Don't be fooled, only the wealthy want to do this because they can afford it. The wealthy love to pretend they are good. Some are but they are hypocrites. 

Save the world but punish the poor 

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

nope, it does not work that way.

That was your question:

Quote

What is the best alternative energy source we have today? What is the most viable alternative to coal? 

I answered: windpower.

Quote

Pretend all one want's we can get off fossil fuels in 20 years is a myth

It seems possible from a technical point of view but its maybe not possible from a political point of view. Anyway, it should be the key target of a country to force renewable energy plants for various reasons. First, for environmental reasons. If I remember correctly, you are from Canada and looking at the sand oil fields in Alberta I wouldnt say that this area looks healthy anymore. 2nd, for economical purposes. The amount of available oil gets reduced each day and we have to face rising prices in the future, resulting into increasing prices for oil generated electricity, which will not only impact your costs for some light and your aircon in your home but also for industrial products, transportation costs and services as well, means, your whole financial reality. Investing tax money to expand the harvest of energy by renewable energy sources is a big chance to keep at least the current wealth of a population, inter alia by the creation of thousands of new jobs in this industry. And, what the majority of people dont have on the radar yet, we western countries need additional jobs more that ever in the past because AI is knocking at our doors.

Quote

... and a money grab by the left that feel they can save us as they fly in private planes and drive Suv's or go on cruise ships and think they are saving the world.  

Don't be fooled, only the wealthy want to do this because they can afford it. The wealthy love to pretend they are good. Some are but they are hypocrites. 

Save the world but punish the poor 

I`m sorry but thats absolute BS and smells like a CT created by the PR department of Suncor Energy.

BTW: do you hold oilsand shares?

 

Edited by toast
The computer says: no
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, toast said:

That was your question:

I answered: windpower.

It seems possible from a technical point of view but its maybe not possible from a political point of view. Anyway, it should be the key target of a country to force renewable energy plants for various reasons. First, for environmental reasons. If I remember correctly, you are from Canada and looking at the sand oil fields in Alberta I wouldnt say that this area looks healthy anymore. 2nd, for economical purposes. The amount of available oil gets reduced each day and we have to face rising prices in the future, resulting into increasing prices for oil generated electricity, which will not only impact your costs for some light and your aircon in your home but also for industrial products, transportation costs and services as well, means, your whole financial reality. Investing tax money to expand the harvest of energy by renewable energy sources is a big chance to keep at least the current wealth of a population, inter alia by the creation of thousands of new jobs in this industry. And, what the majority of people dont have on the radar yet, we western countries need additional jobs more that ever in the past because AI is knocking at our doors.

I`m sorry but thats absolute BS and smells like a CT created by the PR department of Suncor Energy.

BTW: do you hold oilsand shares?

 

I live where I live and yes oil is a big part and no Suncor would never touch me as I would be a bug in there ear. I wish I had shares in the company but no. The Pipeline I want to happen through Canada and the US.  However tree huggers that drive suv's and bus's and trains and plains don't like it. There is nothing perfect about this but if you want to cut off fossil fuel you better be ready for the out come.  I have had many ties to many in the oil industry and they are more than willing to make it better as they are being pushed to do so but the cost for you to live out weighs a solar panel or a wind mill that can not fill the gap at this time. We need to improve what we have and stop wishing more for a magic cure.  

We have to realistic here. Everything you own or eat uses fossil fuel. Lets say you are a vegetarian, how do you buy the vegetables if not for fossil fuel. I'm not saying we need to burn more but less in a better manner.  

Oh and don't accuse me of being some sort of propaganda bull crap. It's like me saying you are a, I will leave this blank 

how does Germany get it's energy ? 

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.