Whats the "Greenest" way to produce electricity?

[Furcifer]

Very easy. Not only does it usually requiring flooding large areas, destroying the environment in the vicinity of the dam, it also has massive effects on ecosystems downriver. Deltas disappear due to lack of silt, fertile land disappears because of lack of flooding and lack of silt. Fish and other aquatic organisms get stuck in restricted areas and can suffer from lack of oxygen and increases in pathogens due to stagnant water. Hydro is great in terms of emissions, but in many situations it's easily one of the worst sources of energy in terms of actual environmental impact.

Closed systems are becoming more common, but once through systems are common, particularly with coal, nuclear and even cogen. They suck in vegetation and wild life as well.
In most cases the lakes and reservoirs created by damming increase biodiversity in the areas they replaced (lakes filled with fish and water birds that otherwise wouldn't habitate the rivers they've replaced). They also provide recreational areas for local residents.
That's if they need to. Niagra falls for instance doesn't suffer from any of the afflictions you've mentioned???

I pointed out in my other post how dirty comparable nuclear is. I'm not sure what else could be built in the same area to replace a hydro dam that comes anywhere near being as clean. They are ridiculously easy to operate and maintain. I seem to recall in that program on Discovery, I think it was called "After Humans" or something, that hydro would be the last to be producing electricity.

 

[blutoski]

Wave/tidal? What's the whole-of-life CO2 cost on that?

I think impact varies with scale and location and construction/maintenance/materials.

I have to remind my students that many classes of life rely on tide and waves. ie: the "tidal zone" and estuarial zones of the world's coastlines, which is a significant portion of all marine and estuarial aquatic life.

It's really a hard to question to answer, because we should be fair in assuming that we want to give everybody in the world equal access to electricity, which means we have to create an estimate for electricity supply that far exceeds current production by probably a few orders of magnitude.

 

[Trakar]

I pointed out in my other post how dirty comparable nuclear is. I'm not sure what else could be built in the same area to replace a hydro dam that comes anywhere near being as clean. They are ridiculously easy to operate and maintain. I seem to recall in that program on Discovery, I think it was called "After Humans" or something, that hydro would be the last to be producing electricity.

I would be interested in any facts and references you could cite with respect to your considerations of hydro and nuclear power, but, I'm really not interested in what some science fantasy entertainment program you half-remember had to say.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah I'd like to see some "support" for the continuous op-ed commentary.

The TCase series on Brave New Climate is the most comprehensive evaluations of energy options in easily understood language from source with credentials...

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/tcase-series/

Hydro is really not in play as it cannot be positioned and major sites are mostly used.

Solar steam has some potential in some areas.

 

[DC]

well thanks for all the posts sofar

is there a website/study or something like that that did compare the diffrent plants we already use? which would include everything about pollution from construction to the production of electricity.

and i was more thinking of bigger powerplants, be they nuclear or solar or whatever, but not only to feed one house.

 

[Edx]

What is the Greenest way to produce Electricity?

Cycle with a dynamo

 

[Furcifer]

I would be interested in any facts and references you could cite with respect to your considerations of hydro and nuclear power, but, I'm really not interested in what some science fantasy entertainment program you half-remember had to say.

Like what? That they use large amounts of concrete to build hyperbolic cooling towers, basins, even the reactors themselves? That large lakes contain more aquatic life than rivers? That "sea" birds prefer standing water to moving water? Be specific, I'm not sure what you don't already know. it would appear to be a lot. You keep talking about things like "baseline" when I think you mean "baseload".

I have no idea what the snotty remark about some fictitious program is for. It might not be interesting to you, but others might not be aware of how labour intensive nuclear reactors are in comparison to hydroelectric. That's all that was being pointed out, that the first day no one shows up at a nuclear facility it stops generating, but a hydroelectric dam will basically run until it breaks down.

 

[quarky]

No easy answers. Conservation doesn't count as a power source, though it has the most potential to minimize need for a source.

Frost heave is my personal little fantasy. In Antarctica, there are some fresh water sources that could be tapped with minimal ecological impact, though the set-up cost would be extreme.

 

[Furcifer]

well thanks for all the posts sofar

is there a website/study or something like that that did compare the diffrent plants we already use? which would include everything about pollution from construction to the production of electricity.

and i was more thinking of bigger powerplants, be they nuclear or solar or whatever, but not only to feed one house.

I think it also depends on if you mean current or in the future. I firmly believe hydro is the cleanest, but as most has been tapped out, further development may prove to be less green. Choice spots have already been exploited for obvious reasons, not so much because it was clean, but very cheap after the initial investment.
I don't see hydro coming close to meeting the increasing demands. Although it may do so indirectly in the form of excess energy pumping water to a height and using that clean potential energy to drive turbines.

 

[Modified]

Cycle with a dynamo

Probably not, due to all the extra food you'd need to eat. Of course, most people eat excess food anyway.

 

[Trakar]

... Although it may do so indirectly in the form of excess energy pumping water to a height and using that clean potential energy to drive turbines.

Such as the new German system that just came online?

 

[Trakar]

Like what? That they use large amounts of concrete to build hyperbolic cooling towers, basins, even the reactors themselves? That large lakes contain more aquatic life than rivers? That "sea" birds prefer standing water to moving water? Be specific, I'm not sure what you don't already know. it would appear to be a lot. You keep talking about things like "baseline" when I think you mean "baseload".

Baseline energy* - http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/baseline_energy.htm

I have no idea what the snotty remark about some fictitious program is for. It might not be interesting to you, but others might not be aware of how labour intensive nuclear reactors are in comparison to hydroelectric. That's all that was being pointed out, that the first day no one shows up at a nuclear facility it stops generating, but a hydroelectric dam will basically run until it breaks down.

The "snot" is about the value of most of the information on such pop-sci entertainment shows.

While you make a lot of unsupported, and as far as I can tell, unfounded assertions, personally attacking me, does not proof your points. So again, please provide some relevent and respectable references for your assertions and kindly drop the attitude.

*this instance is for a specific application, listed merely to demonstrate that the usage of the term "baseline power" is an accepted and widely used appelation for what is also often referred to as a base-load of energy generation/distribution requirements. Specific usage is generally context determined.
BTW- it is most properly "base load" though "baseload" is rather commonly seen, and generally acceptable.

 

[DC]

Cycle with a dynamo

you wouldn't say that when you would sea me breathing after riding a bicycle

 

[DC]

I think it also depends on if you mean current or in the future. I firmly believe hydro is the cleanest, but as most has been tapped out, further development may prove to be less green. Choice spots have already been exploited for obvious reasons, not so much because it was clean, but very cheap after the initial investment.
I don't see hydro coming close to meeting the increasing demands. Although it may do so indirectly in the form of excess energy pumping water to a height and using that clean potential energy to drive turbines.

well current, for the future i am hoping for Fusion plants, with ITER and similar projects we are heading into a interesting future.

But i wondered about today.

While i also like Hydro power they are not as green as they look when you take into consideration the altering of landscape and ecosystems. Also the production of the huge masses of concrete and all the moving of building material into a often hard to reach place in the mountains. Also the production of the turbines and all that causes a lot pollution. Or moving the houses of millions of families as some did.

But it sure is one of the better solutions i think when the region fits.

And the bolded part i like very mutch, and like to see it been used in my country. while not yet with Wind energy as it is planned by the EU in Scandinavia, we use Nuclear, which is also not so bad.

 

[DC]

Such as the new German system that just came online?

yeah that sound good

 

[Trakar]

...well current, for the future i am hoping for Fusion plants, with ITER and similar projects we are heading into a interesting future.
...

On that note:


http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/06/iter_angers_greens_agreement_s.html

...ITER is having a tough time making friends in Europe. Last month, we reported that European partners in the project had failed to come up with the additional billions needed to begin construction in earnest. Now, it appears that Europe's left-wing Green politicians, at least, would like to see ITER cancelled outright. "I'm now convinced that this is the best moment to stop ITER before construction begins," Rebecca Harms, the leader of the Greens in the European Parliament, is reported as saying on EurActive.com. Harms is joined by a handful of other green parliamentarians who believe that ITER is too costly and too speculative to warrant support...

 

[Furcifer]

well current, for the future i am hoping for Fusion plants, with ITER and similar projects we are heading into a interesting future.

But i wondered about today.

While i also like Hydro power they are not as green as they look when you take into consideration the altering of landscape and ecosystems. Also the production of the huge masses of concrete and all the moving of building material into a often hard to reach place in the mountains. Also the production of the turbines and all that causes a lot pollution. Or moving the houses of millions of families as some did.

But it sure is one of the better solutions i think when the region fits.

And the bolded part i like very mutch, and like to see it been used in my country. while not yet with Wind energy as it is planned by the EU in Scandinavia, we use Nuclear, which is also not so bad.

No doubt. Nothing is perfect by any means. But my limited foray into the production of electricity has led me to the conclusion that absolutely nothing trumps hydro. If you have falling water on your property, you have hands down the most green and reliable source of electric.

Even wind has it's critics. "They chop up birds!", while I can sympathize, this has no bearing on the long term. A small portion of highway "chops up birds" every year.

Nuclear is dirty by any comparison to hydroelectric. And we all know how clean nuke is. The short term losses have absolutely no effect. There's no NIMBY when it comes to hydro.

Once the initial change happens, the rest is academic. Hydro is hands down the cleanest form of generation. This sentiment is held industry wide. A majority hydro electric that happens you are totally unaware of. That's a fact.

 

[Furcifer]

Nice topic however, I think we've all lamented this at one point or another. It's truly a consideration we all need to make in the near future. The ultimate goal is to produce energy with the least amount of impact to the environment. Now, and in the future. Gen IV reactors are the ultimate solution IMHO.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Trakar]

Nuclear is dirty by any comparison to hydroelectric. And we all know how clean nuke is. The short term losses have absolutely no effect. There's no NIMBY when it comes to hydro.

Once the initial change happens, the rest is academic. Hydro is hands down the cleanest form of generation. This sentiment is held industry wide. A majority hydro electric that happens you are totally unaware of. That's a fact.

No, those are assertions that you have not, as of yet supported with anything but your personal statements that such is so.

Hydro NIMBY - http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/energydams.htm

http://www.newint.org/issue273/dam.htm

http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/review_of_the_dammed_by_fred_pearce

 

[Tubbythin]

Not a source of energy, only storage.

I think this is not necessarily true, though its certainly true for the forseeable future.