Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Flac -
Do any non-renewable forms of energy production have severe envionrmental impacts?
How would you compare the potential environmetal impact of tidal with, say, coal or the use of fracking to extract natural gas?
Tidal is an ocean floor Cuisinart blender.. I want to see Enviro impact report on the fish, dolphins, turtles, ect --- destroyed in tidal power systems.. We don't have that yet === do we?
Geothermal mining is on your list.. I'd rather have 4 oil or Nat Gas wells near my property than a Geothermal mine. It is FAR DIRTIER operation and not even TRULY "renewable".
Biomass conversion is "burning garbage".. Sold as burning tree by products, and brush, but it always morphs to burning literal garbage. See the outrage from British Greens after they were the useful tools to get a network of "nice clean green Biomass Plants" in their neighborhoods.. They wised up too late.. And so will you...
Want me to go on? Or is your mind still closed???
Um....will you be answering the question at some point?
I'm not proposing biomass nor geo-thermal (except perhaps in places like Iceland, where it makes sense) myself. I consider both forms or energy largely unnecessary for the reasons you state.
On tidal energy the loss of wildlife is a major issue, but also one that can be dealt with. It all depends on the depth of water the turbines are placed at, and research is being done on this. It's more of a teething problem than a threat to the viability of tidal.
1) Cost/benefit analysis.Flac -
Let's try this again:
Do any non-renewable forms of energy production have severe envionrmental impacts?
How would you compare the potential environmetal impact of tidal with, say, coal or the use of fracking to extract natural gas?
BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...
BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...
And yet only two countries have ever introduced large-scale geo-thermal energy, and another two have smaller scale operations.
I'm not sure where a country like England "learned to frack" from geo-thermal when they have never used it.
I'm not totally opposed to fracking - but no sensible person is going to complain about the environmental impact of wind, solar or tidal and then pretend natural gas does not have potentially much more serious impacts.
BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...
And yet only two countries have ever introduced large-scale geo-thermal energy, and another two have smaller scale operations.
I'm not sure where a country like England "learned to frack" from geo-thermal when they have never used it.
I'm not totally opposed to fracking - but no sensible person is going to complain about the environmental impact of wind, solar or tidal and then pretend natural gas does not have potentially much more serious impacts.
Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..
BTW: the Enviro-Tools are too dense to realize this -- but Geothermal energy is where we LEARNED how to frack.... It's the original fracking operation....
Mental Midgets... THey don't realize how stupid they look to folks who are informed...
And yet only two countries have ever introduced large-scale geo-thermal energy, and another two have smaller scale operations.
I'm not sure where a country like England "learned to frack" from geo-thermal when they have never used it.
I'm not totally opposed to fracking - but no sensible person is going to complain about the environmental impact of wind, solar or tidal and then pretend natural gas does not have potentially much more serious impacts.
Fracking has been around for over 30 years. Amazingly enough oil companies share info.
I find it amusing you argue "potential" environmental effects of fracking (when there have been none documented in over 30 years) while blissfully ignoring the very real environmental catastrophe that are wind farms every minute they operate. Your whole viewpoint is so skewed it is amazing.
"potential" environmental effects of fracking (when there have been none documented in over 30 years)
Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..
New Zealand has a single plant at Waireki, the main impact of which has been to reduce thermal acitivity at tourist resorts in the region, to the extent that local residents have had to stop using bores for their own use.
One report some years back estimated that the plant lost some 90% of the available energy, because the technology is inadequate.
It may be viable in four or five countries, but only in four or five countries. The US maybe one of those, but if it means the end of Yellowstone NP, I doubt it is going to be popular.
I have no idea why you think tidal is "marginal" - one pilot scheme (in New Zealand again, funnily enough) estimated that in optimal conditions, a single project could produce 1.5 times the energy need of the entire country.
In other words, a single project in some US states could theoretically power the entire state.
Dude your comprehension of scientific matters is low, I mean low. New Zealand's population is 3 million, all in a country that stretches from effectively Vancouver BC to San Diego CA, and is 60 miles wide.
And yet only two countries have ever introduced large-scale geo-thermal energy, and another two have smaller scale operations.
I'm not sure where a country like England "learned to frack" from geo-thermal when they have never used it.
I'm not totally opposed to fracking - but no sensible person is going to complain about the environmental impact of wind, solar or tidal and then pretend natural gas does not have potentially much more serious impacts.
Fracking has been around for over 30 years. Amazingly enough oil companies share info.
I find it amusing you argue "potential" environmental effects of fracking (when there have been none documented in over 30 years) while blissfully ignoring the very real environmental catastrophe that are wind farms every minute they operate. Your whole viewpoint is so skewed it is amazing.
Would you have any links on the "environmental catastrophe that are wind farms" ?
Other than being a threat to birds I don't know how else they can become a catastrophe ... I can't say the same about deep oil drilling though ( fracking seems clean in comparision).
Wall of Spam -
"potential" environmental effects of fracking (when there have been none documented in over 30 years)
An investigation is underway into why a natural gas well in Wyoming County began spewing highly pressurized fracking wastewater for hours last week.
More than a quarter million gallons came out of the well before it was successfully capped.
After Fracking Wastewater Spill, Residents and Regulators Believe Water is Safe | StateImpact Pennsylvania
Would you have any links on the "environmental catastrophe that are wind farms" ?
Other than being a threat to birds I don't know how else they can become a catastrophe ... I can't say the same about deep oil drilling though ( fracking seems clean in comparision).
Depends on what you consider "large-scale".. New Zealand has a track record, so does Iceland and the US as you mentioned. It's on the list of alternatives everytime an eco-naut is asked what do we do without fossil fuels. And that's the point. A large fraction of that list is challenged even by other Green Groups..
New Zealand has a single plant at Waireki, the main impact of which has been to reduce thermal acitivity at tourist resorts in the region, to the extent that local residents have had to stop using bores for their own use.
One report some years back estimated that the plant lost some 90% of the available energy, because the technology is inadequate.
It may be viable in four or five countries, but only in four or five countries. The US maybe one of those, but if it means the end of Yellowstone NP, I doubt it is going to be popular.
I have no idea why you think tidal is "marginal" - one pilot scheme (in New Zealand again, funnily enough) estimated that in optimal conditions, a single project could produce 1.5 times the energy need of the entire country.
In other words, a single project in some US states could theoretically power the entire state.
"Decimating"?
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... just more of the usual panic and hysterical exaggerations that define the denialist crowd.
The slaughter of 400,000+ birds per year is A-OK with you so long as it's a windmill doing it but if a oil spill kills 300 that company needs to be punished?
