• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

How Green Are Green Energy Sources And Products?

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter

the same one who looked DIRECTLY into the sun during a solar eclipse when every human being knows one shouldn't.
or the president who calls himself the stable genius...
or "windmills cause cancer"
or "new 'environment friendly' lightbulbs can cause cancer '
or "“If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire-retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down,”

should i go on? SERIOUSLY!!! how can you guys NOT SEE he's delusional!

Looking at the solar eclipse for a second won't hurt you. It's prolonged exposure that causes retinal burns.

As for energy-saving light bulbs, they DO actually cause cancer according to scientists.

And windmills, which are supposed to be environmentally-friendly, kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year.
So much for helping mother nature...

I don't know about asbestos. I'm not engineering-savvy, but it wouldn't be the first Trump was mocked only to be proven right later.

I'm not getting into the pro vs. anti Trump argument. Just want to say that compact fluorescent lightbulbs are apparently toxic, but there is a non-toxic environmentally-friendly alternative to regular lightbulbs: LED bulbs.

As for windmills, I haven't heard that they cause cancer, but apparently, they do cause major discomfort and illness in people who live close to them. And, yes, they are harmful to birds as well. However, they are a relatively clean source of energy, so they should be used far from inhabited areas and bird migration routes.

P.S. Just want to clarify regarding the wind turbines making people feel ill: it's not scientifically proven...just that quite a few people living near them report feeling sick.

Well, wind turbines kill thousands of birds each year and birds are important for the ecosystem and in plant reproduction which defeats the purpose if you ask me,

Most energy-efficient solutions aimed at saving the environment are actually harming it.
We are wasting valuable money pursuing stupid clean energy solutions when there's little evidence to suggest humans are responsible for climate change.

As opposed to famously bird friendly burning of coal and fossil fuels?

More relatedly: Coronavirus detected on particles of air pollution

Watch this...

Sadly, so-called green energy sources themselves rely on fossil fuel...


Yep, I've been meaning to watch this and will soon. I've heard a lot of criticism of the factual accuracy of the documentary from very well-respected folks in the environmental movement as well as the fact that it almost entirely relies on oil industry talking points. So, I'll wait to see it before judging. However, regardless of how much reliance green energy has on fossil fuels, it is not of the same level as actually having fossil fuels actually *be* the entire basis of energy consumption.

Well...I'm always skeptical of anything in the media, no matter what "side" it seems to be on. This is one point of view. I've also looked into the other side's point of view.

As far as this documentary / point of view is concerned, I'm not surprised that those in the environmental movement are opposing it. The filmmaker is a self-proclaimed "tree-hugger" (not pro-fossil fuel) who says environmental organizations have sold themselves out to corporations. As for "green" energy...it's not that they are somewhat relying on fossil fuels...it's that they apparently use more fossil fuels and have a bigger impact on the environment than if we just burned fossil fuels in the first place.

How true are those claims made in the documentary? Those interested can try to fact check. But, on the surface, they do seem logical.
 
I don't know much about this topic to be able to discuss.

All I know that we should get away from fossil fuels as much as we can and try to find other sources of energy.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
Nuclear is the greenest:
  • No emission and very power dense
  • even meltdowns and waste glow green!

I'm not sure why everyone discounts nuclear energy it's the best solution we have available
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
I'm not sure why everyone discounts nuclear energy it's the best solution we have available
Well i agree i think the biggest chunk of the solution should be systemic and not hippy feuled in order to achieve a real transition. The best technology that provides enough power density and is cost efficient is Nuclear energy. While waiting for the Gen 2 (fusion that seems to be advancing but still far from ready and we are not sure if it ever will but that would be the silver bullet).

Every power source has its pros and cons:
Coal: Too much carbon emissions but cheap and scalable
Feul and Gas: Same as Coal
Windturbines: SF6 Gas emissions and noise pollution but done properly not that bad
Waterturbines (dams et all): a disaster on the flooded areas wildlife but if done properly are not that bad and the damage is local
Wave energy: still a pipedream today and needs major investments to be deployed and is only a solution for countries that have vast unused coastlines
Nuclear: Meltdown risk, leaks and nuclear waste is a major problem but super cheap and as it is extremely power dense
Heat stations (mirrors and turbines): amazing idea but the powerdensity compared to cost is really high and scalability is a issue
Solar: Lots of horrible materials are used in the production of solar panels and the efficiency i do not think we are able to absorb over 20% (maybe outdated but this was a lab number) of the solar energy

Add to that all of the "renewables" tend to be pretty streaky (wind vs no wind, rain or no rain, sun or no sun) and to continue using these we need big big batteries (horrible for the environment) or an extremely complex system that by itself would be very expensive to manage and the transitions will be extremely slow.

I agree the only plug and play solution that would work by reusing the maximum of the current infrastrusture and building a faster transition is Nuclear. Research is being done on nuclear waste management but we still do not have the solution and its a big big problem as for meldowns newgen powerplants work differently than the older ones and risks are pretty low (well we thought they were low before but now its lower not sure if it means they are really low :) )

Projects like Terrapower (Candle stick nuclear powerplants using the waste we already produced to power them as we use around 0.7% of the material and dump over 99.3%). China accepted to build the first plant but unfortunately with the trade war between the US and China that was banned by the US government as it would transfer "know how" to China while the USA is refusing to test.
TerraPower had funding and had AREVA agreeing to supply the build know how but unfortunately the project is shelved.

In short: I think nuclear is the only realistic solution for fast action but its not that great so reducing the emissions of powerplants and production (industry) and so on need to be acted on quickly

Edit: The real question is do you want to spend your life in a room full of smokers breathing second hand smoke or pay enourmous amount of money for fresh air? or get both (cheap and fresh air) yet be on a somewhat shady street...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
Was talking about production grade i know a company in germany promised 35% but those were lab results (and this is a few years back)...people cannot afford lab equipement to put them on their roofs.
 
Last edited:

dyyyy

Well-Known Member
I still didn't watch the documentary but when we talk about the efficiency of solar power or turbines, we're talking about their current status.

If we project in the future, they will get better and will finally be much greener than what we currently have. So on the long run they're worth it.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
I still didn't watch the documentary but when we talk about the efficiency of solar power or turbines, we're talking about their current status.

If we project in the future, they will get better and will finally be much greener than what we currently have. So on the long run they're worth it.
maybe the first step towards a better world is to actually watch something before you comment on it. ye3ne in other words, take the time to educate yourself on a subject before forming an opinion.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
maybe the first step towards a better world is to actually watch something before you comment on it. ye3ne in other words, take the time to educate yourself on a subject before forming an opinion.

Well the topic of the thread is how green are green energy sources, so technically speaking watching Michael Moore's documentary is not a requirement to have an opinion on the subject
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
there is one thing that people always disregard when discussing renewable energy sources(i havnt watched the docu yet, but knowing MM i’m willing to bet his activism has completely blinded him to it) and that is energy storage ie: batteries.
renewable energy sources have very varying outputs throughout the day and without energy storage they are utterly useless.

making batteries means extracting rare earth minerals: lithium, neodym, dysprosium..
extracting these metals has a great environmental and economical costs and are mostly located in 3 regions :bolivia/congo region/china.
regions where environmental protocols and security are blown to the wind.

the anti-nuclear energy argument is a farce and doesn't hold unless you’re a hippie and need your feelings be validated.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
there is one thing that people always disregard when discussing renewable energy sources(i havnt watched the docu yet, but knowing MM i’m willing to bet his activism has completely blinded him to it) and that is energy storage ie: batteries.
renewable energy sources are have very varying outputs and without energy storage they are utterly useless.

making batteries means extracting rare earth minerals: lithium, neodym, dysprosium..
extracting these metals has a great environmental and economical costs and are mostly located in 3 regions :bolivia/congo region/china.
regions where environmental protocols and security are blown to the wind.

the anti-nuclear energy argument is a farce and doesn't hold unless you’re a hippie and need your feelings be validated.

Watch the documentary, didn't watch it either but will do so later. It talks about the environmental impact of green energy as well as other stuff but that's the major takeaway from it
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
there is one thing that people always disregard when discussing renewable energy sources(i havnt watched the docu yet, but knowing MM i’m willing to bet his activism has completely blinded him to it) and that is energy storage ie: batteries.
renewable energy sources have very varying outputs throughout the day and without energy storage they are utterly useless.

making batteries means extracting rare earth minerals: lithium, neodym, dysprosium..
extracting these metals has a great environmental and economical costs and are mostly located in 3 regions :bolivia/congo region/china.
regions where environmental protocols and security are blown to the wind.

the anti-nuclear energy argument is a farce and doesn't hold unless you’re a hippie and need your feelings be validated.
Only thing that holds in the anti-nuclear argument is sufficient funding for waste management facilities and research.
 

HalaMadrid

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
Only thing that holds in the anti-nuclear argument is sufficient funding for waste management facilities and research.
But isn't this the *whole* anti-nuclear argument from environmentalists? That if we scale up to the required amount to completely phase out coal, oil, and natural gas we don't have the sufficient waste management and storage/safety/etc to avoid Fukushimas multiple times over and in places that are likely to cost many lives? I'm pretty nuclear agnostic, so I'm genuinely curious. But it seems like a legitimate concern. Like, if the whole purpose is to save lives/ecosystems, we shouldn't scale up something where one disaster could cost 10x as many?
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
But isn't this the *whole* anti-nuclear argument from environmentalists? That if we scale up to the required amount to completely phase out coal, oil, and natural gas we don't have the sufficient waste management and storage/safety/etc to avoid Fukushimas multiple times over and in places that are likely to cost many lives? I'm pretty nuclear agnostic, so I'm genuinely curious. But it seems like a legitimate concern. Like, if the whole purpose is to save lives/ecosystems, we shouldn't scale up something where one disaster could cost 10x as many?
The problem is that all that Anti-Nuclear movement is drying up research for nuclear waste knowing that we need that research especially on nuclear waste managament.
In my earlier post mentionned Terrapower that had the potential of being a safer nuclear facility that does not generate waste (it actually does at 0.7% instead of 99.3% but that 0.7% can be reput in the current reactors or the otherway around). Projects like these need funding and political will to move forward with.

In any case it should be a mix of the least damaging projects depending on every country and what they can do...if you are algeria its cheaper to go with solar and heat stations with the vast amounts of sunny land that is unusable...for indonesia wind and enormous coast lines make it ideal of wave and wind ....while semi landlocked germany in the middle of a tectonic plate and not on the edges would be better off on Nuclear rather than coal.

Scaling 1 up to 100% of production is not the smartest idea but big polluters such as china, germany and the USA are capable of scaling up nuclear safely while making other high polluters (arabian gulf due to petrol production) drop as demand on oil will drop.

Should of been a mix since the begining but we used up our carbon quota that we can throw in the air so we need to adjust even if it is not ideal.
 

HalaMadrid

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
The problem is that all that Anti-Nuclear movement is drying up research for nuclear waste knowing that we need that research especially on nuclear waste managament.
In my earlier post mentionned Terrapower that had the potential of being a safer nuclear facility that does not generate waste (it actually does at 0.7% instead of 99.3% but that 0.7% can be reput in the current reactors or the otherway around). Projects like these need funding and political will to move forward with.

In any case it should be a mix of the least damaging projects depending on every country and what they can do...if you are algeria its cheaper to go with solar and heat stations with the vast amounts of sunny land that is unusable...for indonesia wind and enormous coast lines make it ideal of wave and wind ....while semi landlocked germany in the middle of a tectonic plate and not on the edges would be better off on Nuclear rather than coal.

Scaling 1 up to 100% of production is not the smartest idea but big polluters such as china, germany and the USA are capable of scaling up nuclear safely while making other high polluters (arabian gulf due to petrol production) drop as demand on oil will drop.

Should of been a mix since the begining but we used up our carbon quota that we can throw in the air so we need to adjust even if it is not ideal.
The research money should be taken from the fossil fuel industry, then - not a competition among clean energy proponents ;)

Yes, agree on the mixture and each has to be tailored to the natural resources of the country/region. Seems silly to take a one-size-fits all approach.

Relatedly: Germany produced a lot more solar energy in recent weeks because the smog clearing allowed more sun to shine lol Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
The research money should be taken from the fossil fuel industry, then - not a competition among clean energy proponents ;)

Yes, agree on the mixture and each has to be tailored to the natural resources of the country/region. Seems silly to take a one-size-fits all approach.

Relatedly: Germany produced a lot more solar energy in recent weeks because the smog clearing allowed more sun to shine lol Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
photovoltaiic cells are not efficient and their production process is very dirty, the only solar viable power plants are solar concentrator farms like this one in morocco:


but of course you need to either have a parallel night generation (most likely oil/gas)solution or store huge amounts of energy in batteries which is by itself a major polluting effort and would remove any “greenness” from the whole thing.
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
photovoltaiic cells are not efficient and their production process is very dirty, the only solar viable power plants are solar concentrator farms like this one in morocco:


but of course you need to either have a parallel night generation (most likely oil/gas)solution or store huge amounts of energy in batteries which is by itself a major polluting effort.
I was talking about those when i said "heat stations" spain has many of them aswell
 

HalaMadrid

Well-Known Member
Orange Room Supporter
photovoltaiic cells are not efficient and their production process is very dirty, the only solar viable power plants are solar concentrator farms like this one in morocco:


but of course you need to either have a parallel night generation (most likely oil/gas)solution or store huge amounts of energy in batteries which is by itself a major polluting effort and would remove any “greenness” from the whole thing.
Are both photovolatic and battery storage perpetually "dirty" or just in the initial creation phase?
 

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
The research money should be taken from the fossil fuel industry, then - not a competition among clean energy proponents ;)

Yes, agree on the mixture and each has to be tailored to the natural resources of the country/region. Seems silly to take a one-size-fits all approach.

Relatedly: Germany produced a lot more solar energy in recent weeks because the smog clearing allowed more sun to shine lol Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Yes saw the news about germany. They have been investing in green cities a smart grids for a while.

@Iron Maiden usually in an utopian world where 100% is renewables and with a extremely well built and dimensioned smart grids you would have moments where you would need batteries. The theory is that for those cases instead of a battery you can fallback on oil/coal to produce 0.5% of your yearly consumption...if you have nuclear in your mix you do not even need to do that.
Batteries are useless and expensive and horrible for the motherland
 
Top