OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'm not quite sure that the Earth was created with pre-packaged solar cells ready to be installed...they will have pollution in their manufacture, and embodied energy in their construction, and waste streams when they all start to fail and need replacement some time down the future.
Don't get nothing for nothing, even free energy.
You come up with some doozies once in a while. I'll put up solar and wind per MW capacity to your coal generator. Coal is terribly wasteful and polluting. Something like 15% of the gross output is needed for auxiliaries. Massive electric motors on the order of 10,000 hp for FD and ID fans, a half dozen 600hp coal crusher motors, massive cooling tower pumps, condensate, boiler feedwater. A 12 story building of massive steel and 1000s of millions of tons of coal ash that will sit somewhere for forever and pollute groundwater. Trillions of tons of sulphur, ash, and various heavy metals injected into the atmosphere. Then what do you do with the small city of steel when it is done after its 40 year design life?
Is the energy input to solar and wind free? yes or no
Please.....just please.
While we can certainly rip on coal for being a "fossil" plant, my gripe is more toward comparing these "green" efforts to established non-fossil driven modes of generation like hydro electric and nuclear. The former which appears to be too "old" to get the green stigma group behind it (it isn't new, exciting, or in your face) and the latter currently suffering from the fallout (pardon the pun) of the Japan disaster.
Example of a good sized Canadian hydro dam here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-Bourassa_generating_station
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The Robert-Bourassa generating station (formerly known as La Grande-2) is a hydroelectric power station on the La Grande River that is part of Hydro-Québec's James Bay Project in Canada. The station can generate 5,616 MW and its 16 units were gradually commissioned between 1979 and 1981.[1] Annual generation is in the vicinity of 26500 GWh.[2]
Together with the adjacent 2,106 MW La Grande-2-A generating station (LG-2-A), commissioned in 1991-1992, it uses the reservoir and dam system of the Robert-Bourassa Reservoir to generate electricity. The two plants taken together account for more than 20% of Hydro-Québec's total installed capacity of 36,810 MW in 2009.[1] It is Canada's largest hydroelectric power station and currently[when?] ranks in 8th place on the list of largest hydroelectric power stations.
Note that this dam has been making power for 34 years. How many wind turbines or solar farms are going to yield that kind of lifespan? Not to mention that this dam makes power 24/7/365.
The town I live in (a big personal gripe) has a couple of hydro dams. Instead of adding another or upgrading these 100 year old installs, they installed a 10MW solar farm that they then had to rip up 25% of because those panels were under performing. The solar farm occupies 150 acres, but the city has 300 acres reserved to it. This is 300 acres of good farm land.
The 40 million dollars of taxpayer money would have gone MUCH further pursuing expanding or upgrading our existing (reliable) hydro electric infrastructure. But the solar farm is "in your face!" like wind turbines, so that's why that was done instead. It doesn't matter that it was financially irresponsible in comparison to other efforts. It doesn't matter that power production wise, it falls on its face compared to existing generating methods. What matters is that it shows that we are "green" because we built a solar farm. It's about bowing and serving the propaganda machine; about towing the line on the green movement train rather than using logic and common sense. And that's what bothers me the most about the entire push to go "green". It is more about image and media; about hype and agenda than it is about actually being green.
That's not to say there aren't places where these developing methods of generation, wind and solar, make sense. There are I am sure. But this location isn't one of them. We don't get a lot of sun. We get a fair amount of snow. The land is NOT flat and the wind does NOT blow steadily. The best method of generation for this area was discovered and utilized more than 100 years ago and that's the rivers that flow through it. If people could look past the propaganda and agenda, this sort of logical evaluation could be made before the money is spent and many times wasted. There's nothing wrong with not doing something that makes no sense. Unfortunately it would seem those in charge of making these types of decisions are more concerned with how they appear in the media relative to the green movement than they are about how they spend the money of those who are paying for their service. And that's a problem.
Our hydro rates TRIPLED because of these green energy "projects". None of which have contributed significantly to Ontario's hydro infrastructure. The staples are still our nuke plants which basically run the entire province. So where is the value that I, the taxpayer/consumer am getting for that money? We aren't shuttering coal plants and oil burners here. We've already invested massively in refurbishing our 2nd largest nuke plant, which comes on the heels of the refurb of our largest. Had the province gone ahead with the expansion of Darlington, it and Bruce could run the province. That would have been, IMHO, money well spent. Instead, it would seem, our money is being squandered on these fly-by-night efforts which don't last and often get ripped up after the grant money dries up. Again, where's the value in that? I'm not seeing it
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'm not quite sure that the Earth was created with pre-packaged solar cells ready to be installed...they will have pollution in their manufacture, and embodied energy in their construction, and waste streams when they all start to fail and need replacement some time down the future.
Don't get nothing for nothing, even free energy.
You come up with some doozies once in a while. I'll put up solar and wind per MW capacity to your coal generator. Coal is terribly wasteful and polluting. Something like 15% of the gross output is needed for auxiliaries. Massive electric motors on the order of 10,000 hp for FD and ID fans, a half dozen 600hp coal crusher motors, massive cooling tower pumps, condensate, boiler feedwater. A 12 story building of massive steel and 1000s of millions of tons of coal ash that will sit somewhere for forever and pollute groundwater. Trillions of tons of sulphur, ash, and various heavy metals injected into the atmosphere. Then what do you do with the small city of steel when it is done after its 40 year design life?
Is the energy input to solar and wind free? yes or no
Please.....just please.
While we can certainly rip on coal for being a "fossil" plant, my gripe is more toward comparing these "green" efforts to established non-fossil driven modes of generation like hydro electric and nuclear. The former which appears to be too "old" to get the green stigma group behind it (it isn't new, exciting, or in your face) and the latter currently suffering from the fallout (pardon the pun) of the Japan disaster.
Example of a good sized Canadian hydro dam here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-Bourassa_generating_station
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
The Robert-Bourassa generating station (formerly known as La Grande-2) is a hydroelectric power station on the La Grande River that is part of Hydro-Québec's James Bay Project in Canada. The station can generate 5,616 MW and its 16 units were gradually commissioned between 1979 and 1981.[1] Annual generation is in the vicinity of 26500 GWh.[2]
Together with the adjacent 2,106 MW La Grande-2-A generating station (LG-2-A), commissioned in 1991-1992, it uses the reservoir and dam system of the Robert-Bourassa Reservoir to generate electricity. The two plants taken together account for more than 20% of Hydro-Québec's total installed capacity of 36,810 MW in 2009.[1] It is Canada's largest hydroelectric power station and currently[when?] ranks in 8th place on the list of largest hydroelectric power stations.
Note that this dam has been making power for 34 years. How many wind turbines or solar farms are going to yield that kind of lifespan? Not to mention that this dam makes power 24/7/365.
The town I live in (a big personal gripe) has a couple of hydro dams. Instead of adding another or upgrading these 100 year old installs, they installed a 10MW solar farm that they then had to rip up 25% of because those panels were under performing. The solar farm occupies 150 acres, but the city has 300 acres reserved to it. This is 300 acres of good farm land.
The 40 million dollars of taxpayer money would have gone MUCH further pursuing expanding or upgrading our existing (reliable) hydro electric infrastructure. But the solar farm is "in your face!" like wind turbines, so that's why that was done instead. It doesn't matter that it was financially irresponsible in comparison to other efforts. It doesn't matter that power production wise, it falls on its face compared to existing generating methods. What matters is that it shows that we are "green" because we built a solar farm. It's about bowing and serving the propaganda machine; about towing the line on the green movement train rather than using logic and common sense. And that's what bothers me the most about the entire push to go "green". It is more about image and media; about hype and agenda than it is about actually being green.
That's not to say there aren't places where these developing methods of generation, wind and solar, make sense. There are I am sure. But this location isn't one of them. We don't get a lot of sun. We get a fair amount of snow. The land is NOT flat and the wind does NOT blow steadily. The best method of generation for this area was discovered and utilized more than 100 years ago and that's the rivers that flow through it. If people could look past the propaganda and agenda, this sort of logical evaluation could be made before the money is spent and many times wasted. There's nothing wrong with not doing something that makes no sense. Unfortunately it would seem those in charge of making these types of decisions are more concerned with how they appear in the media relative to the green movement than they are about how they spend the money of those who are paying for their service. And that's a problem.
Our hydro rates TRIPLED because of these green energy "projects". None of which have contributed significantly to Ontario's hydro infrastructure. The staples are still our nuke plants which basically run the entire province. So where is the value that I, the taxpayer/consumer am getting for that money? We aren't shuttering coal plants and oil burners here. We've already invested massively in refurbishing our 2nd largest nuke plant, which comes on the heels of the refurb of our largest. Had the province gone ahead with the expansion of Darlington, it and Bruce could run the province. That would have been, IMHO, money well spent. Instead, it would seem, our money is being squandered on these fly-by-night efforts which don't last and often get ripped up after the grant money dries up. Again, where's the value in that? I'm not seeing it
