Cleanest form of energy production?

[Saigon]

We all know hydro dams destroy river valleys, fracking can cause leaks of toxic water and that bats are often killed in wind turbines.

On balance, which do you think are the best energy options from an environmental angle?

My thinking is that no form of energy production is perfect. There is always going to besome environmental impact, but we have to balance that impact against the amount of energy produced, and do what we can to mitigate the damage.

My preferred options:

- Solar. Although production does involve some hazardous materials (and thus waste), in general solar panels are silent, invisible and create no immediate waste. The potential impact is no worse than the average computer.

- Nuclear. I think it is worth it. Despite the worst waste product of any form of energy production, nuclear remains the best option for areas not troubled by earthquake or tsunamis.

-Wind. Yes, they kills bats. But only in areas where bats live in large numbers. The solution - place them in areas less used as a bat highway. Given that wind is never going to work everywhere anyway, I think the bird issue is probably not the major limitation here.

-Tidal. Yes, they kill sea life, and this is a serious issue. But this can be mitigated by placing the turbines at different distances from the surface and looking at methods of discouraging sharks etc from swimming into them. In 1 or 2 areas this may mean abandoning tidal energy, but my feeling is that this is largely a teething problem.

- Hydro. While the loss of river valleys is tragic, so the creation of lakes can be fantastic. It depends on the country and the river valley in question. I am appalled that Uganda is damning the best river rafting site in the world and a major tourism attraction; but elsewhere, large countries can afford to sacrafice one river to house a half dozen dams.

I'm not totally opposed to fracking for natural gas, but as with most forms of energy, I think it is only suited to particular conditions, and at this stage I think that means well away from populated areas.

 

[Gracie]

I'd have to go with Solar.

 

[S.J.]

ALL energy sources should be used wherever they are practical.

 

[Sallow]

Human.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar
wind
tidal
thermal
Nuclear

 

[Mr. H.]

Fracking is fine. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill there.

 

[Saigon]

Fracking is fine. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill there.

Really?

And you base this on what, exactly?


Fracking accident leaks benzene into Colorado stream

Officials in Parachute, Colo., stopped the flow of creek-water into a reservoir following a natural-gas fluid spill.Garfield CountyOfficials in Parachute, Colo., stopped the flow of creek water into a reservoir following a natural-gas fluid spill.

Once again, Colorado’s fracking boom has residents wondering if there’s something in the water — carcinogenic benzene, in this case. A plant for fracked natural gas processor Williams Energy, near Parachute, Colo., spilled an estimated 241 barrels of mixed natural gas liquid into the ground, some of which eventually washed as benzene into Parachute Creek.

Fracking accident leaks benzene into Colorado stream | Grist

 

[Saigon]

The state Department of Environmental Protection hasn’t finished its investigation into a gas well spill that caused the evacuation of three homes in Wyoming County last month, but in the meantime the agency has allowed the drilling company to resume fracking operations.

The accident began on the evening of March 13 at a well north of Tunkhannock in Washington Township. More than a quarter million gallons of fracking waste water came out of the well before it was successfully capped the following afternoon.

DEP Allows Fracking To Resume At Spill Site Before Investigation is Complete | StateImpact Pennsylvania

 

[Mr. H.]

Fracking is fine. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill there.

Really?

And you base this on what, exactly?


Fracking accident leaks benzene into Colorado stream

Officials in Parachute, Colo., stopped the flow of creek-water into a reservoir following a natural-gas fluid spill.Garfield CountyOfficials in Parachute, Colo., stopped the flow of creek water into a reservoir following a natural-gas fluid spill.

Once again, Colorado’s fracking boom has residents wondering if there’s something in the water — carcinogenic benzene, in this case. A plant for fracked natural gas processor Williams Energy, near Parachute, Colo., spilled an estimated 241 barrels of mixed natural gas liquid into the ground, some of which eventually washed as benzene into Parachute Creek.

Fracking accident leaks benzene into Colorado stream | Grist

It means you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. 'Samatta - ya deef?

...bats are often killed in wind turbines.

...and now you're making a molehill out of a mountain.

Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds a year!

Honestly you crack me up.

 

[Mr. H.]

Sorry if I diverted the discussion as originally intended.

But when you maximize the trivial, and minimalize the obvious and blatant then I feel I gotta say sumpin'.

 

[konradv]

My favorite is still in the research stage. I hope I see it before I die: Fusion.

ITER - the way to new energy

Vintage DOE: What is Fusion | Department of Energy

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ECAT HT Validated by Top Physicists

 

[westwall]

Human.

Slavery? Really? You might want to think a little harder on that one....

 

[SSDD]

Slavery? Really? You might want to think a little harder on that one....

I've been shopping around for a coal fired Prius. Any ideas?

 

[flacaltenn]

We all know hydro dams destroy river valleys, fracking can cause leaks of toxic water and that bats are often killed in wind turbines.

On balance, which do you think are the best energy options from an environmental angle?

My thinking is that no form of energy production is perfect. There is always going to besome environmental impact, but we have to balance that impact against the amount of energy produced, and do what we can to mitigate the damage.

My preferred options:

- Solar. Although production does involve some hazardous materials (and thus waste), in general solar panels are silent, invisible and create no immediate waste. The potential impact is no worse than the average computer.

- Nuclear. I think it is worth it. Despite the worst waste product of any form of energy production, nuclear remains the best option for areas not troubled by earthquake or tsunamis.

-Wind. Yes, they kills bats. But only in areas where bats live in large numbers. The solution - place them in areas less used as a bat highway. Given that wind is never going to work everywhere anyway, I think the bird issue is probably not the major limitation here.

-Tidal. Yes, they kill sea life, and this is a serious issue. But this can be mitigated by placing the turbines at different distances from the surface and looking at methods of discouraging sharks etc from swimming into them. In 1 or 2 areas this may mean abandoning tidal energy, but my feeling is that this is largely a teething problem.

- Hydro. While the loss of river valleys is tragic, so the creation of lakes can be fantastic. It depends on the country and the river valley in question. I am appalled that Uganda is damning the best river rafting site in the world and a major tourism attraction; but elsewhere, large countries can afford to sacrafice one river to house a half dozen dams.

I'm not totally opposed to fracking for natural gas, but as with most forms of energy, I think it is only suited to particular conditions, and at this stage I think that means well away from populated areas.

The way you pose this question seems to suggest that ALL of these are equal in efficacy, reliability and capacity and siting requirements. They are not. In fact, some of these are sketchy enough to not merit much discussion about their cleanliness.

Hydro is incredibly destructive to the environment. But in the neccessary sense of providing flood control, water storage, and OTHER uses besides energy --- a limited and WELL designed capacity is justified. Recently it's been realized that hydro is not even GREEN in terms of CO2. When you build NEW facilities and flood massive amounts of land, you are releasing MONUMENTAL amounts of new CO2 as all that vegetation decays..

I'm really not worried that a minute of Benzene appears in the natural area around fracking sites. Nobody should be surprised that a portion of land sitting upon a MASSIVE petroleum/gas field leaks petrochemicals. It's totally normal to find Gas and Benzene leaking naturally in these areas. And so what if minutes amount of Benzene are part of the fracking fluid. It's like pissing into a sewer. The amounts of NATURALLY OCCURING hydrocarbon compounds overwhelms the few barrels of stuff that you MIGHT be pumping in. (efforts to pin fracking fluids to benzene are actually still unproven, just suspected).

The cleanest play we have in energy in today was not even mentioned. And that would be to convert our transport fuel sector to Hydrogen and Fuel Cell vehicles. Hydrogen made OFF GRID by wind and solar.. Solves the storage problem for wind/solar. Makes a MUCH BETTER electric vehicle. And --- it IS without any major environmental impact except the safety of storage and transport.

 

[tjvh]

I'd have to go with Solar.

Google "solar panel, pollution, and China" and see if you still think that is the case.

 

[bripat9643]

We all know hydro dams destroy river valleys, fracking can cause leaks of toxic water and that bats are often killed in wind turbines.

On balance, which do you think are the best energy options from an environmental angle?

My thinking is that no form of energy production is perfect. There is always going to besome environmental impact, but we have to balance that impact against the amount of energy produced, and do what we can to mitigate the damage.

My preferred options:

- Solar. Although production does involve some hazardous materials (and thus waste), in general solar panels are silent, invisible and create no immediate waste. The potential impact is no worse than the average computer.

- Nuclear. I think it is worth it. Despite the worst waste product of any form of energy production, nuclear remains the best option for areas not troubled by earthquake or tsunamis.

-Wind. Yes, they kills bats. But only in areas where bats live in large numbers. The solution - place them in areas less used as a bat highway. Given that wind is never going to work everywhere anyway, I think the bird issue is probably not the major limitation here.

-Tidal. Yes, they kill sea life, and this is a serious issue. But this can be mitigated by placing the turbines at different distances from the surface and looking at methods of discouraging sharks etc from swimming into them. In 1 or 2 areas this may mean abandoning tidal energy, but my feeling is that this is largely a teething problem.

- Hydro. While the loss of river valleys is tragic, so the creation of lakes can be fantastic. It depends on the country and the river valley in question. I am appalled that Uganda is damning the best river rafting site in the world and a major tourism attraction; but elsewhere, large countries can afford to sacrafice one river to house a half dozen dams.

I'm not totally opposed to fracking for natural gas, but as with most forms of energy, I think it is only suited to particular conditions, and at this stage I think that means well away from populated areas.

Business people should decide what form of energy to use, not politicians. Coal and natural gas are the cheapest, and they are both clean enough. Perfectly cleanliness isn't achievable and not even desirable from an economic point of view.

 

[Old Rocks]

And autism and asthma are desireable from an economic point of view. Sure Pattycake, we understand you well.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd have to go with Solar.

Google "solar panel, pollution, and China" and see if you still think that is the case.

The only pollution involved in manufacturing solar is up front, and, with adaquete regulations, it is not a problem. And you might look at what the Chinese have done with coal generation, and the air quality in Bejing.

Solar is by far the cleanest and least intrusive of the generation.

 

[skookerasbil]

We all know hydro dams destroy river valleys, fracking can cause leaks of toxic water and that bats are often killed in wind turbines.

On balance, which do you think are the best energy options from an environmental angle?

My thinking is that no form of energy production is perfect. There is always going to besome environmental impact, but we have to balance that impact against the amount of energy produced, and do what we can to mitigate the damage.

My preferred options:

- Solar. Although production does involve some hazardous materials (and thus waste), in general solar panels are silent, invisible and create no immediate waste. The potential impact is no worse than the average computer.

- Nuclear. I think it is worth it. Despite the worst waste product of any form of energy production, nuclear remains the best option for areas not troubled by earthquake or tsunamis.

-Wind. Yes, they kills bats. But only in areas where bats live in large numbers. The solution - place them in areas less used as a bat highway. Given that wind is never going to work everywhere anyway, I think the bird issue is probably not the major limitation here.

-Tidal. Yes, they kill sea life, and this is a serious issue. But this can be mitigated by placing the turbines at different distances from the surface and looking at methods of discouraging sharks etc from swimming into them. In 1 or 2 areas this may mean abandoning tidal energy, but my feeling is that this is largely a teething problem.

- Hydro. While the loss of river valleys is tragic, so the creation of lakes can be fantastic. It depends on the country and the river valley in question. I am appalled that Uganda is damning the best river rafting site in the world and a major tourism attraction; but elsewhere, large countries can afford to sacrafice one river to house a half dozen dams.

I'm not totally opposed to fracking for natural gas, but as with most forms of energy, I think it is only suited to particular conditions, and at this stage I think that means well away from populated areas.

All sliver of the market energy stuff well past 2035.......combined, all less than 10%. Ive posted multiple forecasts up too many times to remember......but all have fossil fuels at 75% to 80% = winning.

As Van Morrison famously sang, "Rave on....rave on!!!"