Whats the "Greenest" way to produce electricity?

[Last of the Fraggles]

I don't think there is such a thing as the greenest way to make electricity. Every possible source has advantages and disadvantages and each situation will have a different optimal solution.

The answer to the energy problem is a mix of technologies and applications some of which no doubt have not even been invented yet.

In general, production is going smaller and more distributed, which allows people to optimise locally.

 

[DC]

I don't think there is such a thing as the greenest way to make electricity. Every possible source has advantages and disadvantages and each situation will have a different optimal solution.

after the first sentence i disagreed heavily
after the second sentence i agreed heavily

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

after the first sentence i disagreed heavily
after the second sentence i agreed heavily

And given the demand for energy the question is not usually 'should we do A or B?' anyway its more like 'how can we do A AND B?'

 

[The Shrike]

"Green" is more than carbon balance. Ancillary threats to biodiversity must be factored in.

Hydro has an awful track record for changing landscapes through the inundation of bottomland forests. These are generally far more species rich than a reservoir, in contrast to comments posted earlier in this thread.

Wind turbines do cause direct mortality through collisions of birds and bats. For most species, the numbers make the threat insignificant; not so for others. If we lose 100 robins it's not nearly as big a deal as 100 eagles (or condors, for that matter).

Bigger problem with wind turbines is fragmentation of remaining prairies, where most of the units are going in these days. Some prairie species just plain avoid any tall structure, so they abandon otherwise suitable habitat that has wind turbines. That's not cool for things like prairie-chickens.

Green energy solutions? Nukes baby. Combine that with home-scaled, vertical axis wind turbines and solar water heaters. I also love the exercise bike for your TV solution.

 

[DC]

im not so sure if Nukes can be seen as so green as curently claimed, what evidence is there to support the notion that Nuclear is a green technology?

 

[The Shrike]

im not so sure if Nukes can be seen as so green as curently claimed, what evidence is there to support the notion that Nuclear is a green technology?

"Greener than coal" is why I'm pro-nuke, and again my beef is more to do with the amount of habitat disturbance for native wildlife than CO2 emissions.

 

[macdoc]

How about you define "green" there DC instead of us having to guess.

Nuclear over lifetime is generally close to carbon neutral which is the main goal just now get rid of coal.

 

[Tubbythin]

Why do you think that? The only way to produce energy from matter/anti-matter annihilation is to start off with matter and anti-matter. Since anti-matter is not the sort of thing you find just floating around the place in large, easily mined deposits, the only way to get any is to produce it ourselves.

I was thinking of induced beta decay (lasers???) of (slightly) neutron-deficient, quasi-stable nuclei.

It's exactly the same situation as hydrogen currently has, where you have to make it out of water because there isn't any hydrogen lying around. The difference is that there is a fair bit of hydrogen in space if only we could get to it easily, whereas there simply aren't large amounts of anti-matter anywhere.

It's not the same situation since we could get a net energy output with the right isotope (should one exist) from induced beta-decay... were it possible.
Though you might argue about semantics and say that this wouldn't really be getting the energy from annihilation unless you could find some ingenious way to store all the positrons until wanted.

 

[Trakar]

Lightning (God's hand) produces an enormous amount of inorganic Nitrogen; arguably more than the amount man produces. To find a way to tap it effectively might inadvertently starve plant life.

There's always a catch.

The never-ending grace of unintended consequences!

I doubt we'd ever be able to scale such systems up to the point where we eliminate lightning, but if a viable means of tapping into some of that potential can be established, every little bit helps.

 

[Trakar]

im not so sure if Nukes can be seen as so green as curently claimed, what evidence is there to support the notion that Nuclear is a green technology?

As I initially remarked in response to the OP, a lot depends upon how you define "green."

By most standards, properly designed and managed nuclear power is much more safe and clean than coal or petroleum based power systems.

 

[Mikemcc]

I assume the plan is to use some underground cavern for the horizontal portion? Deep enough I guess this would work, it's just that I've heard there are serious problems with geothermal.

Sorry, just stirring the pot a bit. I don't know what the problem is exactly, just something I heard recently. I've never done any research on the matter myself.

It's not a case of finding a cavern, the idea is to drill two bore holes and over-pressurise them to fracture the rock structure to provide a path for water to filter from one borehole to the other. It uses less fluid, and that fluid stays in contact with the rock for longer, with a greater surface area, making it more efficient. Finding areas with hot rock strata that are susceptable to being broken up is the difficult thing.

 

[Mikemcc]

im not so sure if Nukes can be seen as so green as curently claimed, what evidence is there to support the notion that Nuclear is a green technology?

The initial website is a bit garish, but this is probably the best site looking at the pros and cons of different generating sources and strategies. David MacKay was initial anti-nuke, but his analysis proves it's the best route in the medium to long term.

 

[quarky]

I object to the assumption that we will need twice as much energy in x amount of years.
I assume we'll use half, or less, than our present global consumption.
A Renaissance of elegant designs.

 

[Marduk]

Surely the greenest way of producing electricty is by rubbing a balloon on your jumper


I think they should use this method for power stations, that way when something goes wrong, the worst that could happen is that there would be a loud pop and everyone nearby would find their hair sticking up

 

[macdoc]

Quarky

I object to the assumption that we will need twice as much energy in x amount of years.
I assume we'll use half, or less, than our present global consumption.
A Renaissance of elegant designs.

50% more people, 2 billion or more upwardly mobile and you don't think we will need more energy.!!!????....

You're dreaming....efficiency can only go so far and who cares how much we use as long as it is sustainable and carbon neutral.

 

[quarky]

Quarky


50% more people, 2 billion or more upwardly mobile and you don't think we will need more energy.!!!????....

You're dreaming....efficiency can only go so far and who cares how much we use as long as it is sustainable and carbon neutral.

Exactly my point.

The road to sustainable/carbon neutral is the road to elegance.

No one is nostalgic for the Eniac proto-type computers of yesteryear.

I predict an analogous revolution of thought in regards to the rest of our lifestyle.

We could have transport systems that actually returned energy to the grid, at least in some locations.

I object to the notion that we aren't clever enough; or tough enough, to think our way through this.

 

[DC]

"Greener than coal" is why I'm pro-nuke, and again my beef is more to do with the amount of habitat disturbance for native wildlife than CO2 emissions.

like nuclear waste in the north sea?

greener than coal? what is not?

 

[DC]

How about you define "green" there DC instead of us having to guess.

Nuclear over lifetime is generally close to carbon neutral which is the main goal just now get rid of coal.

the least impact on Landscape, fauna and flora, least waste produced / mwh from building it to finally take it of the net and recycle it or reuse it.

 

[DC]

As I initially remarked in response to the OP, a lot depends upon how you define "green."

By most standards, properly designed and managed nuclear power is much more safe and clean than coal or petroleum based power systems.

considering what coal and petroleum did to us, that doesn't really say much.

 

[DC]

The initial website is a bit garish, but this is probably the best site looking at the pros and cons of different generating sources and strategies. David MacKay was initial anti-nuke, but his analysis proves it's the best route in the medium to long term.

I'm not anti nuke, i also think it is the best solution to our extreme need.

but calling it green or the greenest? no, i think it gets to much glorified atm.
and unsolved problems are getting ignored.