How Green Are Green Energy Sources And Products?

Mrsrx

Mrsrx

Somehow a Member
Staff member
Are both photovolatic and battery storage perpetually "dirty" or just in the initial creation phase?
Production and then discarding them into recycling...super expensive and not efficient...
Efficiency is about how much energy they take from the available suns energy when working...its pretty low best in breed i checked this morning is 22.8%
 
  • Advertisement
  • NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    If you’re serious about saving the environment, you’ll need to go back to the horse. Everything else that you do is going to have a detrimental effect on the environment.
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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
    But parroting tree huggers' propaganda is?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    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
    it was more of a general point. the main problem we are facing in this day and age is that people are very quick to adopt strong positions without understanding the real issues underneath. and this impacts everything in particular the so called green energy scam. all of these technologies should remain in the R&D process until they are really ready to be deployed, and so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans, are way more harmful than traditional power plants.

    there are relatively cleaner energy sources, in particular natural gas and nuclear power plant, in particular the newer generation IV systems, which adhere to a wide array of fail safe requirements, are still the most environment friendly solutions that can provide enough power for the modern day requirements. there are other solutions being invested, including tapping into earth core, which sounds like science fiction but is actually implemented in iceland where the volcanic system is shallow enough, and there are also solar farms that use reflectors heating a closed circuit water system, with a wide array of mirrors directed at a central reservoir turning water into steam which gets the turbines going.

    solar panels and wind turbines pollute way more than traditional energy when you factor in maintenance, battery systems, and disposal. it is however quite a tragedy that the masses still do not see beyond what they are being shown or what they are being programmed to see. so it is imperative they start doing their own homework, and it is even more imperative that they develop healthy analytical faculties.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    it was more of a general point. the main problem we are facing in this day and age is that people are very quick to adopt strong positions without understanding the real issues underneath. and this impacts everything in particular the so called green energy scam. all of these technologies should remain in the R&D process until they are really ready to be deployed, and so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans, are way more harmful than traditional power plants.
    I'm not discussing the unbolded part of your sentence, just gotta point out that you're also prone to adopting strong positions on some things without having a complete picture.

    Now in regards to the bolded part, this is simply not true. While there is a big environmental and energy consuming cost to producing renewable energy like solar farms and wind turbines, it pales in comparison to traditional power plants that rely on fossil fuel or coal.

    there are relatively cleaner energy sources, in particular natural gas and nuclear power plant, in particular the newer generation IV systems, which adhere to a wide array of fail safe requirements, are still the most environment friendly solutions that can provide enough power for the modern day requirements. there are other solutions being invested, including tapping into earth core, which sounds like science fiction but is actually implemented in iceland where the volcanic system is shallow enough, and there are also solar farms that use reflectors heating a closed circuit water system, with a wide array of mirrors directed at a central reservoir turning water into steam which gets the turbines going.
    I agree with this part except when it comes to natural gas, while it is a lot less polluting than traditional fossil fuels and coal, it remains a big source of pollution, 50% less CO2 than a traditional coal power plants is still a significant amount of CO2.

    solar panels and wind turbines pollute way more than traditional energy when you factor in maintenance, battery systems, and disposal.
    As previously mentioned, this is inaccurate, even when you factor in maintenance, battery systems and disposals it pales in comparison to just the transportation of fuel from the source to the energy plant. While I agree renewable energy sources are far from perfect and should be less polluting in the production phase, claiming they are more polluting than traditional energy is just wrong.

    it is however quite a tragedy that the masses still do not see beyond what they are being shown or what they are being programmed to see. so it is imperative they start doing their own homework, and it is even more imperative that they develop healthy analytical faculties.
    Yes, I agree, everyone must do their homework and back their claims using accredited scientific sources particularly when discussing issues that are plagued with misinformation, random conspiracy theories, and just plain old ignorance.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I'm not discussing the unbolded part of your sentence, just gotta point out that you're also prone to adopting strong positions on some things without having a complete picture.
    you can rest assured i am well informed on this subject, though this is not my area of expertise; and yes we are all prone to adopting strong points without having the full picture at times, and therefore keeping an open mind is always a must in order to let go of wrong notions and adopt correct or better ones.

    Now in regards to the bolded part, this is simply not true. While there is a big environmental and energy consuming cost to producing renewable energy like solar farms and wind turbines, it pales in comparison to traditional power plants that rely on fossil fuel or coal.
    i am not arguing in favor of coal or fuel-oil plants. i specifically pointed out that natural gas and new generation nuclear power plants are cleaner and have a smaller impact on the environment. i am not arguing against renewable energy either, geothermal, reflector based solar farms, tidal and hydro based power generation are all proven cleaner solutions where they can be applied.
    I agree with this part except when it comes to natural gas, while it is a lot less polluting than traditional fossil fuels and coal, it remains a big source of pollution, 50% less CO2 than a traditional coal power plants is still a significant amount of CO2.
    the environmental impact is not simply measured by CO2 emissions there are many other factors, including destruction of forests and mountains for coal, fuel spills, etc.. and when it comes to solar panels and wind turbines, there is not simply the problems of battery manufacturing and disposal, but also that of solar panel manufacturing and proper disposal, and that of wind turbine manufacturing and disposal as well, all of which have a bigger impact on the environment than what the panels or the turbines save in their operational life time.

    switching from coal and fuel-oil power plants to natural gas ones not only reduces the CO2 emissions by half, but it also preserves other aspects of the environment and protects ecological systems that are now being decimated by coal mines, deforestation, etc...

    As previously mentioned, this is inaccurate, even when you factor in maintenance, battery systems and disposals it pales in comparison to just the transportation of fuel from the source to the energy plant.
    natural gas is usually delivered through a pipe system that offsets the ecological and environmental impact within a relatively short time after becoming operational.
    While I agree renewable energy sources are far from perfect and should be less polluting in the production phase, claiming they are more polluting than traditional energy is just wrong
    since you are big on accuracy today, which is always a good thing, i did not claim renewable energy is more polluting than traditional energy. i particularly said "so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans". though the number 90% is simply an estimate. this is particularly true when it comes to solar panels, wind turbines and biomass based solutions.
    Yes, I agree, everyone must do their homework and back their claims using accredited scientific sources particularly when discussing issues that are plagued with misinformation, random conspiracy theories, and just plain old ignorance.
    so we are both in agreement that you should do your homework then ;)
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    you can rest assured i am well informed on this subject, though this is not my area of expertise; and yes we are all prone to adopting strong points without having the full picture at times, and therefore keeping an open mind is always a must in order to let go of wrong notions and adopt correct or better ones.


    i am not arguing in favor of coal or fuel-oil plants. i specifically pointed out that natural gas and new generation nuclear power plants are cleaner and have a smaller impact on the environment. i am not arguing against renewable energy either, geothermal, reflector based solar farms, tidal and hydro based power generation are all proven cleaner solutions where they can be applied.

    the environmental impact is not simply measured by CO2 emissions there are many other factors, including destruction of forests and mountains for coal, fuel spills, etc.. and when it comes to solar panels and wind turbines, there is not simply the problems of battery manufacturing and disposal, but also that of solar panel manufacturing and proper disposal, and that of wind turbine manufacturing and disposal as well, all of which have a bigger impact on the environment than what the panels or the turbines save in their operational life time.

    switching from coal and fuel-oil power plants to natural gas ones not only reduces the CO2 emissions by half, but it also preserves other aspects of the environment and protects ecological systems that are now being decimated by coal mines, deforestation, etc...


    natural gas is usually delivered through a pipe system that offsets the ecological and environmental impact within a relatively short time after becoming operational.

    since you are big on accuracy today, which is always a good thing, i did not claim renewable energy is more polluting than traditional energy. i particularly said "so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans". though the number 90% is simply an estimate. this is particularly true when it comes to solar panels, wind turbines and biomass based solutions.

    so we are both in agreement that you should do your homework then ;)
    You were comparing renewable energy sources to "traditional energy sources" which entails coal and fossil fuel, that is why I made the comparison to fuel transportation as well as other examples. Either way though, your claim that natural gas power plants are less polluting than some renewable energy sources mainly solar and wind, is also wrong.

    But don't take my word for it:
    Natural gas is a much ‘dirtier’ energy source than we thought

    Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds


    It's also not just the co2 emission that is an issue with natural gas, during the drilling process there's quite a bit of leakage of methane, and during production when it comes to powerplants and cars it should be limited to no more than 1% leakage or else their life cycle over a 20 year period is no less efficient than coal powerplants or burning fossil fuels.

    Since you mentioned deforestation as well, where do you think the drilling is done for natural gas? We are disturbing the environment in both scenarios.

    By the way I put your sentence in bold, you can't backtrack it :p, this is what you said:

    all of these technologies should remain in the R&D process until they are really ready to be deployed, and so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans, are way more harmful than traditional power plants.

    We are in agreement when it comes to nuclear energy though, I think it's the best solution we have available for combatting greenhouse emissions. When it comes to homework, it wouldn't you hurt you either to do more :p
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I'm finally starting the documentary now, will let you know what I think.




    Edit: 5 minutes in, I'm a tree hugger, I cut down so many trees to build my house and then proceeded to heat it up using their burning corpses, but I didn't use fossil fuel :p
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    You were comparing renewable energy sources to "traditional energy sources" which entails coal and fossil fuel, that is why I made the comparison to fuel transportation as well as other examples. Either way though, your claim that natural gas power plants are less polluting than some renewable energy sources mainly solar and wind, is also wrong.

    But don't take my word for it:
    Natural gas is a much ‘dirtier’ energy source than we thought

    Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds


    It's also not just the co2 emission that is an issue with natural gas, during the drilling process there's quite a bit of leakage of methane, and during production when it comes to powerplants and cars it should be limited to no more than 1% leakage or else their life cycle over a 20 year period is no less efficient than coal powerplants or burning fossil fuels.

    Since you mentioned deforestation as well, where do you think the drilling is done for natural gas? We are disturbing the environment in both scenarios.

    By the way I put your sentence in bold, you can't backtrack it :p, this is what you said:

    all of these technologies should remain in the R&D process until they are really ready to be deployed, and so far 90% of the solutions parading under the "renewable energy" and "green energy" slogans, are way more harmful than traditional power plants.

    We are in agreement when it comes to nuclear energy though, I think it's the best solution we have available for combatting greenhouse emissions. When it comes to homework, it wouldn't you hurt you either to do more :p
    CO2 emissions are one single component of the environmental impact.

    not many people are familiar with the solar panels manufacturing process, let alone proper disposal. the raw materials required are harvested in mines, aluminum, quartz, copper, silver and other raw materials. this is a rather big impact when these panels are manufactured in the billions. there are also steps in the manufacturing processes that require heating the quartz and the silicon to nearing their melting point in excess of 1200 degrees celsius prior to doping with other material.

    also important is the list of dangerous chemicals in solar panels, some of which are rather toxic or involve the use of toxic materials to be produced:
    • cadmium telluride
    • copper indium selenide
    • cadmium gallium selenide
    • cadmium gallium (de)selenide
    • hexafluoroethane,
    • lead
    • polyvinyl fluroride
    • silicon tetrachloride.
    all of that needs a special process to dispose of these panels. this is without mentioning the toxic wastes from the countless batteries that accompany the panels. the more you rely on these panels the shorter the battery life gets, or the bigger battery you will be needing. these problems will be accentuated several years down the road, creating a new range of problems.

    as i have said, the solar panels technology is still unfit to be used on wide scale, at the moment it should still be in R&D and on mars rovers, and should be deployed in rather particular projects, though a couple of panels on a roof top do not hurt either. the technology needs to mature further before applying it on a wider scale. the great breakthroughs in battery storage technologies and the improvement in solar cells efficiency that are occurring year after year, merit waiting until the technology reaches a better stage before deploying today what will be rather obsolete in a couple of years.
     
    Last edited:
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    CO2 emissions are one single component of the environmental impact.

    not many people are familiar with the solar panels manufacturing process, let alone proper disposal. the raw materials required are harvested in mines, aluminum, quartz, copper, silver and other raw materials. this is a rather big impact when these panels are manufactured in the billions. there are also steps in the manufacturing processes that require heating the quartz and the silicon to nearing their melting point in excess of 1200 degrees celsius prior to doping with other material.

    also important is the list of dangerous chemicals in solar panels, some of which are rather toxic or involve the use of toxic materials to be produced:
    • cadmium telluride
    • copper indium selenide
    • cadmium gallium selenide
    • cadmium gallium (de)selenide
    • hexafluoroethane,
    • lead
    • polyvinyl fluroride
    • silicon tetrachloride.
    all of that needs a special process to dispose of these panels. this is without mentioning the toxic wastes from the countless batteries that accompany the panels. the more you rely on these panels the shorter the battery life gets, or the bigger battery you will be needing. these problems will be accentuated several years down the road, creating a new range of problems.

    as i have said, the solar panels technology is still unfit to be used on wide scale, at the moment it should still be in R&D and on mars rovers, and should be deployed in rather particular projects, though a couple of panels on a roof top do not hurt either. the technology needs to mature further before applying it on a wider scale. the great breakthroughs in battery storage technologies and the improvement in solar cells efficiency that are occurring year after year, merit waiting until the technology reaches a better stage before deploying today what will be rather obsolete in a couple of years.
    We do not disagree on this, I think solar farms take way too much space for very little yield and you are still dependent on other sources of energy, on top of the raw material extraction, storage and production issues. As I said nuclear energy is my preferred choice for now unless they improve renewables tremendously.
     
    Last edited:
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Before I reply to the posts here, I want to say that it would be helpful if people watched the film before commenting because it would clear up some misconceptions regarding the intentions and message of the filmmakers, and because many of the points raised here are already addressed in the documentary.

    Most importantly, it is not helpful to turn this discussion into a pro-fossil/anti-green vs. pro-green/anti-fuel one. The reality is not that black and white. First, each technology has its pros and cons. Second, the main takeaway of the film should be that the real issue is not which products or technologies we use, but how much we use. If we insist on keeping the lifestyle we have become accustomed to, we are going to pollute, no matter what "solutions" we try to come up with.
     
    Top