What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
43 Comments
- epublicus, on 07/19/2009, -8/+29What? No free lunch? You mean that "Green Energy" brings it's own brand of environmental and habitat modification / degradation? Why I thought we were saving the planet, not killing whole industries, not to mention the partial destruction of entire ecosystems, or worse.
- KMye, on 07/19/2009, -0/+15Whether or not one believes CO2-driven AGW is a catastrophic concern or not, tidal energy is power source everyone around the world should be looking at. As epublicus says above, tanstaafl, and it may be that flooding, or even digging out and flooding certain wetlands around the world is a reasonable trade off in some cases.
However, if this will be devastating fisheries around the area as well, that may be too much in this case. Is anyone more familiar with this? Do they expect the fish populations to decline because of what's happening to the wetlands, or is it due to some other element of the project? It would be interesting to know how certain this claim is... - novenator, on 07/19/2009, -2/+13I have been around a lot of geothermal plants in my time, and although I agree it's a good option, there is probably not enough of it to feed the nation's appetite for power.
- sulthernao, on 07/20/2009, -1/+8Or nuclear breeder reactors that use saltwater as fuel. It would result in energy that costs a fraction of a cent per kw-h and a 5 billion years supply.
http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.p ... - Chakat, on 07/20/2009, -0/+6Even geothermal has side effects to be considered:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal ...
The best solution is a balance, reflecting what's best for the local communities, there is no one true solution. - Atario, on 07/20/2009, -0/+6Mock all you want. Waves don't run out; oil will.
- inactive, on 07/20/2009, -0/+5Not only is geothermal power unavailable in a wide swath of the country, but where it does occur is often in sparsely populated areas- mostly with water scarcity. Therefore, more infrastructure is needed to transport the energy to major cities (scarring the landscape as well as being extremely expensive) and the water needed in the generation process depletes local aquifers, harming both local residents and ecosystems.
- Bulletbillx, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4The problem is that fossil fuels and even radioactive materials to make nuclear power are finite. If we could get fusion or renewable power off the ground humanity wouldn't have to worry about one day being sent back to the stone age due to running out of fuel.
- TJ11240, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4If the thermal energy below the Pacific Plate was enough to melt through and create the mountains that are Hawaii, I doubt a few heat exchangers are going to deplete it. Cost effective or practical?- Time will tell.
Should it be part of the domestic renewable energy supply? Absolutely. - KMye, on 07/20/2009, -1/+5Not disagreeing with your skepticism regarding government policies and projects like this, and one would sure as hell hope any project of this scope would recieve serious examination...but don't discount this project out of hand - it would provide (expletive deleted) 5% of the Britain's current power demand!
Once it was built, all that would be required, in terms of significant costs, would be management and maintenance. And unlike wind and solar, the power should be predictable and dependable. This is the kind of massive project governments can do well, and is one that could definitely become extremely economic in the long run. One would hope people on all sides of things would be hoping that environmental consequences put forth in this article are are either overstated or economically avoidable, for the sake of the viability of a critically important form of future power generation. - TJ11240, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3Have you seen what we spend of national defense nowadays? This is a drop in the bucket.
- TJ11240, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3Same argument can be made for PV or wind. Lets get a nice diverse mix.
- Richandler, on 07/19/2009, -9/+11Every form of "renewable" energy comes at a huge ecological cost. You have to build huge unnatural power converting machines over fast areas of land or water. In the end the choice is: the earth could get a little hotter or we could simply kill off and destroy much of nature so we have "green" power. Of course again, there is nuclear.
- altgeeky1, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2Geothermal used to even generate 10% of the world's energy would mean massive earthquakes (for certain, it can already cause them).
A big unknown is man-made cooling (eventual cooling) of the earth's core would do what exactly? Geothermal is NOT renewable. The liquid core regulates the rotation of the earth and the hours per earth day and cooling that mechanism will break the decoupling..
Geothermal is a FINE option... in moderation. It can't scale up enough. No single energy source is going to "settle" (as you put it) the world's energy needs. We should be depricating the dirty energy and working towards all the renewable and clean energy. - ViscidGobs, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2Every form? If renewable energy researchers had the money the oil industry had, we would not be having this discussion.
- brim4brim, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2Yeah except oil is finite but you can build wind farms forever.
Oil is becoming expensive and a liability for politicians. Any politician still selling out to oil is an idiot (see George Bush for reference).
They can support green and look good to the public too. So good PR and caving to lobby group = win win. - crazytucker, on 07/20/2009, -1/+3Companies will exploit nature for profits, asking them to be in control of our natural resources is silly. Nuclear is the only viable option, yet we continue to shun it.
- OrangeTide, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1* citation needed.
- brim4brim, on 07/20/2009, -2/+3No what they are basically saying is the green lobby groups won't be happy once they've gotten their way and will claim it isn't good enough and we need to do more.
The problem with many green lobby groups is the people in them are green business men and not people that really care about the environment as the guy running the business will put its survival ahead of the environment in the end.
Most people will sell out because most people have a price they can be bought for. - DeathToaster, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2Oh, if only it were that simple...
- Ultomato, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2Ya rly. So you guys are basically saying we should stop all research on renewable technology because they harm the environment, but we should stick with oil and coal because it doesnt harm the environment? Again, no one is claiming that green technology is a way to generate electricity without consequences. however its a fact that most renewable energies are less impactful to the environment than oi,l nuclear, and coal. how is that so hard to understand?
- twomeyw23334, on 07/20/2009, -3/+4If mankind converts the earth's heat energy into electricity, won't that invariably lead to catastrophic global cooling!?
- americanoboy, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2*plays the world's smallest violin*
- frieddonuts, on 07/21/2009, -0/+1Currently the California energy companies are fighting to fill a series of underground fissures near the San Andreas fault with water and use the resulting steam energy to power humongous generators. I wonder what could go wrong?
/s - frieddonuts, on 07/21/2009, -0/+1Well I assume that destroying the wetlands will release a massive amount of carbon dioxide in the air (wetlands are an important site of carbon fixation). So there would also be a massive initial carbon cost.
- wassim2k, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Renewble? Really?
- sturmgiest, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Geothermal plants have problems. For one thing, maintenance costs are very high. Trying to keep mechanical equipment operating in an extremely corrosive environment is very difficult.
- sturmgiest, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Not a fact. Especially not with nuclear.
- ViscidGobs, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Who is going to build these projects, the oil industry?
- ViscidGobs, on 07/20/2009, -1/+2Green lobby groups? Nothing compares to the lobbying power and economic might of the petrochemical industry. Maybe you should check the commodity exchange on oil transactions before you type next time.
- JLMEALER, on 07/22/2009, -0/+0The greenies need to sit back and unbridal themselves with the LIE and next with the Obamanation that will lead to the downfall of the USA.
Mealer Companies LLC
America's Next Major Automaker and Green Energy Source Provider!
http://mealercompanies.com - OrangeTide, on 07/20/2009, -4/+4you can make renewable energy from baby seals.
- badfish0116, on 07/20/2009, -7/+7People of the world... Just keep giving your governments hundreds of billions of dollars for "green" projects like this.....Eventually it will all work out....After all they wouldn't take your money and be lying to you would they? I mean they really do care about our planet right? Yeah they have to. That is the only reason they would take money and propose projects like this.....
- chingazo, on 07/21/2009, -1/+1How again is ruining an entire ecosystem, including the local fishing industry less impactful than burning coal to generate power? They both impact the environment, but I'm trying to understand how one or the other is worse for the environment. I don't think folks realize the scale of what these creations must be to generate any significant amount of power. The point I was making is that every effort to put up a hydro-electric plant, or tidal plant, or any other type of "green" power plant, will be fought tooth and nail by green lobby groups, meanwhile, there will be further restrictions on carbon which will in turn create even more of a mess. There will be no progress cause there will always be some kind of pointless creature that these groups will want to protect and nothing will be built. My personal belief is that the replacement for fossil fuels has not been discovered yet and none of the current alternatives are practical, except Nuclear, but the green lobby groups already set us back 20 years by fighting to have any new reactors built.
- cfae, on 07/21/2009, -0/+0Why are we relying on the government to fix things?? Or even BIG Corporations!!! They're only looking at ONE thing---Money!
WE HAVE a BRAIN!!!
Why don't people start in their own backyard?? And wind and solar, tho' unpredictable (ask any farmer!), is NOT the only solution!!!
Have you checked out the guys' invention from Australia?? He built a battery that runs on MAGNETIC POWER!!!
The battery will run indefinitely and produces 5X what you need!!! It uses a resource already available from mother earth!!! Magnetic Energy.
It's amazing!! Something to think about!
And while some are completely confident in their government, I for one, don't trust any of them!! Would they lie to you??? ABSOLUTELY!!!
So, we start in our own back yard!!!
Change begins with the first step!!! - Ultomato, on 07/21/2009, -1/+1your a good example of how powerful oil lobby groups are compared to green lobby groups.
"My personal belief is that the replacement for fossil fuels has not been discovered yet "
so what about the thousands that are living off the grid with solar panels? or solar/wind farms all over the world?
the only reason oil hasnt been replaced yet is because electric cars haven't become mainstream yet. oil companies are doing everything they can to delay, and slow the development of electric cars for obvious reasons. - GnomeProfit, on 07/20/2009, -3/+2***** trade-offs!
Why can't the gov't create a perfect plant that causes no pollution, causes no wildlife damage, is highly efficient, makes fat people thin, cures cancer, grows weed and bacon, and has huge boobs.
POS GOV'T! All their ***** fault. - Barackalypse, on 07/20/2009, -2/+1I have to LOL because it appears even renewable green power isn't green enough for the greenies!
- chingazo, on 07/20/2009, -4/+2Oh really. Well unlike solar, tidal energy can generate energy all day. Solar you only can generate during daytime hours. Keep this in mind, all the environmentalists are screaming to get off oil, but I guarantee that they will also stop all efforts to get off of coal and oil by protecting a frickin lizard or butterfly. When will people realize that there will be negative consequences to anything we do. Solar farms will take huge areas to build and endanger some critter which will be unacceptable to some interest group and they will fight it. There is no way to generate electricity that is environmentally friendly. None.
- spriggig, on 07/19/2009, -6/+3Eventually, we'll stop all this nonsense and settle on the only real option: geothermal.
100% clean
100% renewable
100% fulfilling of all our needs for the foreseeable future. - inactive, on 07/20/2009, -13/+10Here's a thought:
No matter what, we humans will affect our environment. Climate change is normal. So stop wasting your money. - Ultomato, on 07/20/2009, -6/+3so what your basically saying is that we should stick with oil and nuclear because they arent as harmful as renewable energies? no one has claimed that renewable energy is entirely clean, however renewable energies like solar are much cleaner than fossil fuels and nuclear, not to mention these renewable technologies are not fully matured.
- novenator, on 07/19/2009, -13/+6Certain compromises must be met in order for green energy to get off the ground. Granted, the ecological cost of this project was tall, but as a pilot program for this scale, it could have led to greater discoveries on how to do something like this in the future while being less invasive.
Every green energy project has a cost, both financial and environmental, but until we start to REDUCE the amount of energy we consume, green energy is the best solution. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is