Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7
For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.
1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.
2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.
3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.
4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.
|
A 700% increase, over
nine years, INSIGNIFICANT?!? How, exactly?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.
What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;
1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.
2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.
3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.
4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.
5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.
|
As to:
1. As opposed to thermal or nuclear power stations that generates no pollutants in its manufacture? Duh? The difference here, being, that GSWB doesn't produce pollutants when in operation - unlike your alternatives, thermal and nuclear. So point one is blown out of the water.
2. Refer to the previous point. That's a pretty silly justification.
3. Huge footprint - sure. The US thermal energy complex has a footprint that spans halfway around the globe via the atmosphere. Brazilian treefrogs choke on their mosquitos so that the US can have streetlamps burning at ungodly hours. The difference here, is that per kilowatt the GSWB footprint might be considerably larger - but its effect on the ecosystem stops at the fencepost. Go GSWB!!!
4.
HUH???
5. Compare healthcosts and ecological damage due to thermal/nuclear power generation. Add that cost to your electricity generation bill. Check you efficiency stats once more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.
Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.
|
Hey - let's throw all our eggs in one basket and use carbon-based fuels for our electricity generation! Let's rely on oil till the last drop in another twenty years' time! When the oil is finished, we're stuffed - but who cares; it's another 20 years away! And you call GSWB psychotic?! At best, I think you've made yourself guilty of a horribly unfortunate choice of words.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....
Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.
|
Suggestion. After the above visitation, go visit any thermal power plant. Not only the plant itself, but the surrounds. Go and take air samples and precipitation acidity levels thousands of miles away downwind. THAT's your coal/oil-fired power station's footprint. Then go to the surrounding towns and test the locals for lung disease, etc. See the drop in agricultural output downwind as opposed to the same soil upwind. Also, keep in mind the crap coming out of those power stations after the input is burnt off.
Don't EVER call GSWB-type installations 'abortive contraptions' if the above is the alternative!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.
|
Electrolysis of seawater with power you get from where? What makes you think the production process in building a hydrogen fuel cell involves less poison? Last time I checked, that was a particularly filthy thing to manufacture!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by damocles
Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.
|
The power of the individual will eventually most likely be how wisely he applies his mind to survive on this planet whilst keeping the rest of the planet in mind. Using resources in such a selfish way as if there's no tomorrow will ultimately lead to humankind's eventual end. Shooting down or retarding GSWB development because you've got a huge investment in carbon energy, and damn the rest, is no way for a government to behave.
