Cleanest form of energy production?

[konradv]

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?

Maybe you can find one here.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

I think you know better than this Mr. R. Solar panels have an afterlife.

"Pollution... is not a problem". With adequate regulations, no less. As it pertains to solar, no less. You sure like to push that envelope, don't you?

What is the problem with "clean coal" technology? And I put that in quotes because yes it is only "clean" by interpretation. As is solar power.

Get a grip on yourself. You'll never be able to wish away hydrocarbons.
You should be embracing "clean" hydrocarbons because they do exist, they can exist.

Yet you insist on pushing your own agenda as the only viable solution.

Honestly, you do often impress but you all too often disappoint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You list indicates the typical drivel of an ignorant idiot that thinks his version of common sense trumps reality.

The best forms of feasible energy production in order of decreasing impact on the environment are natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, and solar. The reason I rate oil above nuclear is our current regulatory environment nuclear power is forced to build obsolete plants far from the areas the energy is needed. The reason I do not include tidal, despite the fact that I think it deserves to be on the list, is it isn't feasible. There is absolutely no evidence that fracking can cause pollution of groundwater reservoirs, even though it has been known to cause minor earthquakes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bestand cleanest energy source is slave labor, probably the best use for our Progressives too

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd have to go with Solar.

Solar requires a plant that uses massive amounts of rare earth minerals that require a very dirty extraction process, or massive mirrors to heat water in a central tower. The latter is actually less efficient because it requires more direct sunlight. Even though normal solar panels can offer increased output under partly cloudy conditions due to the increased availability of ambient light they cannot fully replace the generation power of standard plants during heavily overcast days, or nights

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The spill was a result of a valve failure on a storage tank, not fracking.

 

[Politico]

I don't care what it is as long as it's the cheapest.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd have to go with Solar.

Solar requires a plant that uses massive amounts of rare earth minerals that require a very dirty extraction process, or massive mirrors to heat water in a central tower. The latter is actually less efficient because it requires more direct sunlight. Even though normal solar panels can offer increased output under partly cloudy conditions due to the increased availability of ambient light they cannot fully replace the generation power of standard plants during heavily overcast days, or nights

Links? Proof of statement? Environmentally worse than coal?

Come on, you make a statement like that, offer some validation for it.

 

[dilloduck]

Boom in Mining Rare Earths
Poses Mounting Toxic Risks

Boom in Mining Rare Earths Poses Mounting Toxic Risks by Mike Ives: Yale Environment 360

 

[tjvh]

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.

Nonsense... The toxicity of the byproducts of the solar panel manufacturing process is astounding, what makes you think that regulations will change that fact in third world nations where these panels come from? It's a classic case of not in my backyard. The problem with the green technology at all cost crowd like yourself is that you fail to grasp that the environment is geographically connected, and pollution in one place inevitably pollutes others. You may feel good that you have solar panels on your roof, but you might consider the feelings of a Chinese farmer whose kid has a tumor because he lives near the company that produced the panels which make you feel so good. Until the manufacturing process changes you need to understand you're solving one problem by creating another, and it's not rational.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd have to go with Solar.

Solar requires a plant that uses massive amounts of rare earth minerals that require a very dirty extraction process, or massive mirrors to heat water in a central tower. The latter is actually less efficient because it requires more direct sunlight. Even though normal solar panels can offer increased output under partly cloudy conditions due to the increased availability of ambient light they cannot fully replace the generation power of standard plants during heavily overcast days, or nights

Links? Proof of statement? Environmentally worse than coal?

Come on, you make a statement like that, offer some validation for it.

Are you really that stupid?