American election.

[Immanuel Can]

And in the meantime, we can also pursue more research and development of wind, solar,

Wind and solar are nowhere near capable of meeting even a small fraction of our present needs, and wind turbines, in particular, are very bad for the environment. They're absolute murder on birds, expensive, ugly, pollution-causing (the storage) and very low-producing. They also depend on a steady, constant supply of wind, which much of the world does not have. It would be great if one day hydrogen would work; but again, we really lack the technology for that at present.

Until we have realistic alternatives, it's going to be nuclear, or the newer "clean coal," or natural gas, or something else that is not wind or solar. That's the reality of things.

And that's a compromise.

[Belinda]

And in the meantime, we can also pursue more research and development of wind, solar,

Wind and solar are nowhere near capable of meeting even a small fraction of our present needs, and wind turbines, in particular, are very bad for the environment. They're absolute murder on birds, expensive, ugly, pollution-causing (the storage) and very low-producing. They also depend on a steady, constant supply of wind, which much of the world does not have. It would be great if one day hydrogen would work; but again, we really lack the technology for that at present.

Until we have realistic alternatives, it's going to be nuclear, or the newer "clean coal," or natural gas, or something else that is not wind or solar. That's the reality of things.

And that's a compromise.

I am hoping geothermal energy will be developed and marketed. At the present stage of technology I see no alternative to nuclear.But what do I know not a lot.

[Gary Childress]

And in the meantime, we can also pursue more research and development of wind, solar,

Wind and solar are nowhere near capable of meeting even a small fraction of our present needs, and wind turbines, in particular, are very bad for the environment. They're absolute murder on birds, expensive, ugly, pollution-causing (the storage) and very low-producing. They also depend on a steady, constant supply of wind, which much of the world does not have. It would be great if one day hydrogen would work; but again, we really lack the technology for that at present.

Until we have realistic alternatives, it's going to be nuclear, or the newer "clean coal," or natural gas, or something else that is not wind or solar. That's the reality of things.

And that's a compromise.

Clean coal? Apparently, there's no such thing. That's not a compromise. That's basically saying we aren't going to do anything about the environment.

[Immanuel Can]

Clean coal? Apparently, there's no such thing.

It seems you're right. I had misunderstood the application of the phrase, and assumed they'd made some technological advance on regular coal. Apparently, they have not.

But I mentioned two other options: nuclear or natural gas. I would add, anything else that would actually work. But right now, that isn't solar, wind or hydrogen. So until we get the technologies to make any of those three remotely workable, we're still going to have to compromise with nuclear or natural gas. And if they don't work, then as of the present moment, it's still back to coal or oil; because it's not like people in a North American climate can go without heating, cooking, travel, transport, and so forth.

So yeah, the "greens" are going to have to compromise on something. That is, unless they want to see people freeze and starve to death. And yeah, there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options.

[Belinda]

Clean coal? Apparently, there's no such thing.

It seems you're right. I had misunderstood the application of the phrase, and assumed they'd made some technological advance on regular coal. Apparently, they have not.

But I mentioned two other options: nuclear or natural gas. I would add, anything else that would actually work. But right now, that isn't solar, wind or hydrogen. So until we get the technologies to make any of those three remotely workable, we're still going to have to compromise with nuclear or natural gas. And if they don't work, then as of the present moment, it's still back to coal or oil; because it's not like people in a North American climate can go without heating, cooking, travel, transport, and so forth.

So yeah, the "greens" are going to have to compromise on something. That is, unless they want to see people freeze and starve to death. And yeah, there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options.

"there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options." (IC)
That sums up the biggest disadvantage of nuclear energy; what to do with nuclear waste product.

[henry quirk]

Clean coal? Apparently, there's no such thing.

It seems you're right. I had misunderstood the application of the phrase, and assumed they'd made some technological advance on regular coal. Apparently, they have not.

But I mentioned two other options: nuclear or natural gas. I would add, anything else that would actually work. But right now, that isn't solar, wind or hydrogen. So until we get the technologies to make any of those three remotely workable, we're still going to have to compromise with nuclear or natural gas. And if they don't work, then as of the present moment, it's still back to coal or oil; because it's not like people in a North American climate can go without heating, cooking, travel, transport, and so forth.

So yeah, the "greens" are going to have to compromise on something. That is, unless they want to see people freeze and starve to death. And yeah, there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options.

"there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options." (IC)
That sums up the biggest disadvantage of nuclear energy; what to do with nuclear waste product.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-e ... th-it.aspx

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

[Immanuel Can]

"there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options." (IC)
That sums up the biggest disadvantage of nuclear energy; what to do with nuclear waste product.

That's a big problem. Because nuclear makes just about the worst type of waste one can possibly make. But it also produces a huge amount of energy, so it's a tempting option, given the amount of energy this world needs to produce. Is coal worse than the waste produced by nuclear energy? Maybe, and maybe not...it depends on how you look at it. You want air pollution, or radioactive waste that lasts for hundreds of years?

But we're still back the the problem that we really don't have any reasonable options but to find ways to produce the massive amounts of electricity this world requires. You're writing on a device right now that collectively requires massive amounts of energy and contains poisonous heavy metals. That's not an easy problem to solve: and putting a windmill in your back yard won't do it.

[attofishpi]

That most of U - USA sheep here think there is NO viable alternative (even with the crazy amount of human population) for clean energy is ridiculous.

Ys UP.

We are a small sphere travelling around a fusion energy system where well over 99% of its energy is going out to the void of the universe so that some alien can look up and see how pretty it is. I am being facetious, but seriously - all it is going to take is investment - the amount of Sun energy that we R not harnessing here on Earth is ridiculous.

Rick was going to start a Philosophy of Environment or something arena here - not sure Y that has not happened because a philosophy forum such AS this one is overdue for it.

[Gary Childress]

"there's going to be some pollution of some kind, because there are no other viable options." (IC)
That sums up the biggest disadvantage of nuclear energy; what to do with nuclear waste product.

That's a big problem. Because nuclear makes just about the worst type of waste one can possibly make. But it also produces a huge amount of energy, so it's a tempting option, given the amount of energy this world needs to produce. Is coal worse than the waste produced by nuclear energy? Maybe, and maybe not...it depends on how you look at it. You want air pollution, or radioactive waste that lasts for hundreds of years?

But we're still back the the problem that we really don't have any reasonable options but to find ways to produce the massive amounts of electricity this world requires. You're writing on a device right now that collectively requires massive amounts of energy and contains poisonous heavy metals. That's not an easy problem to solve: and putting a windmill in your back yard won't do it.

It's not an all or nothing proposition. Solar and wind may not solve all our energy needs but they can be utilized to some extent and more R&D into them could perhaps yield better use of the technology. If some of our energy is created through wind and solar, then that's better than none of our energy being created through it.

[Immanuel Can]

If some of our energy is created through wind and solar, then that's better than none of our energy being created through it.

It's actually not. The wind "technology" we have is presently so feeble, expensive, impractical and counterproductive that in most locales, it would be better if it were not used at all. Solar has potential in equatorial regions, especially, or could be used to reduce our use of other fuels somewhat. But for the foreseeable future, things like oil, nuclear and coal are going to be indispensable.

My vote would be that we keep working hard on things like hydrogen.

But the truth is that there really isn't an alternative right now.

[Gary Childress]

If some of our energy is created through wind and solar, then that's better than none of our energy being created through it.

It's actually not. The wind "technology" we have is presently so feeble, expensive, impractical and counterproductive that in most locales, it would be better if it were not used at all. Solar has potential in equatorial regions, especially, or could be used to reduce our use of other fuels somewhat. But for the foreseeable future, things like oil, nuclear and coal are going to be indispensable.

My vote would be that we keep working hard on things like hydrogen.

But the truth is that there really isn't an alternative right now.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

[Gary Childress]

ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Wind turbines can reduce the impacts associated with conventional electricity generation. The 2019 U.S. wind capacity avoided an estimated 189 million metric tons of CO2 emissions and reduced water use by about 103 billion gallons compared with conventional power plants.17,23
According to a 2015 study, if 35% of U.S. electricity was wind-generated by 2050, electric sector GHG emissions would be reduced by 23%, eliminating 510 billion kg of CO2 emissions annually, or 12.3 trillion kg cumulatively from 2013, and decreasing water use by 15%.9
A 2013 study found energy return on investment (EROI) (energy delivered/energy invested) for wind power of between 18-20:1.24
Annual avian mortality from collisions with turbines is 0.2 million, compared with 130 million mortalities due to power lines and 300-1,000 million from buildings. The best way to minimize mortality is careful siting.9 Bat mortality due to wind turbines is less well studied. Research shows that a large percentage of bat collisions occur in migratory species during summer and fall months when they are most active.9,25 The wind industry has been testing methods that potentially reduce bat mortality by more than 50%.9
Noise 350m from a typical wind farm is 35-45 dB. For comparison, a quiet bedroom is 35 dB and a 40 mph car 100m away is 55 dB.26
As of 2013, several studies have conclusively determined that sound generated by wind turbines has no impact on human health.9

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/wind-en ... %20rapidly.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

I think I am.

You don't want coal, or oil, or nuclear. So what's your alternative?

[Gary Childress]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

I think I am.

You don't want coal, or oil, or nuclear. So what's your alternative?

I've said I don't want coal. I said oil is necessary right now. Nuclear, I'm not 100% sure about but it might be. It's not an all or nothing alternative. We can use some wind and solar to augment fossil fuels and lower emissions a little. That's my alternative--to all fossil fuel, nothing but fossil fuel. Is that what you are advocating, no use whatsoever of solar or wind?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

I think I am.

You don't want coal, or oil, or nuclear. So what's your alternative?

I've said I don't want coal. I said oil is necessary right now. Nuclear, I'm not 100% sure about but it might be. It's not an all or nothing alternative. We can use some wind and solar to augment fossil fuels and lower emissions a little. That's my alternative--to all fossil fuel, nothing but fossil fuel. Is that what you are advocating, no use whatsoever of solar or wind?

I said solar is useful, but not enough, obviously. Wind, no: the turbines are a massive problem environmentally, the supply of wind is not reliable, they don't produce nearly well enough, and they're expensive and butt ugly, to boot. There's no chance wind is our answer.

So oil and nuclear for you, right now? That's a compromise.