Green schemes

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

l
Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies

On this page:

generating 20 percent of US electricity from windy areas in 1975 would have required siting turbines on 18,000 square miles, or an area about 7 percent the size of Texas.

A great argument for wind energy and the high area efficiency of wind energy.

Originally Posted by Corey

l

Polycrystalline silicon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
polysilicon is energy intensive. to produce.
limmited supply this last one I added to point out one drawback of solar.

Come with numbers, not with high energy demand.

Numbers like here:

Photovoltaic production CO2 emission

It seems You do not like, that 10 billion people can have a higher living standard than US people today.

You prefer deficiency and to be a leader distributing the rare resources.

So You hate everything what brings big resources like photovoltaic and wind energy.

In 20 years, the photovoltaic world production will be 100 Watt per inhabitant.

In 30 years, we will have 2 kW photovoltaic per human.

No energy proplems.

[Corey]

"Polycrystalline silicon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
polysilicon is energy intensive. to produce.
limited supply this last one I added to point out one drawback of solar."

This is a limiting factor to solar cells that use this Cristal.

It is energy intensive to make this said crystal this is why in same section I offered some alternative forms of the solar cell which do not necessarily rely on or use limited quantity of this crystal.

Please stop accusing me of being something I am "Not"

I am a conservationist that loves technology I just bought a "PS3"(immoral I know) to make my point.

Reason for buying it, is its lonely no one to hang out with and I been miserable with intellectual efforts to get people to change there destructive way and the fact I witnessed chem-trails this weekend.

I am just promoting caution to new technology and making sure it is not more destructive than the way we been doing it.

as far as biofuel and horses Said horse is not limited to Mono plant grazing where biofuel IS MONO CROPPED which IS DEVESTATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND HABITAT. This is the factor I am pointing out.

If a horse can graze so can wildlife. You put in a mono crop specific for fuel and you wipe habitat out which all other life can't live on.

This "Total cost" is higher in damage than the sq foot proposal you are pushing forward. regarding space.

Grazing land is used by many animals not just the animal for working.

I am in no way saying all or nothing I am focusing on "diversity"

Example of the all or nothing right now is the oil and coal industry it is too "mono" Thus are problems today as a result.

I was totally for solar and wind till I started to learn of the huge negative impact it was going to have on our ecosystem and limited resources. In some cases it was worse than just burning the fossil fuels.

But not all solar and wind is the same thus why some of the other links I pointed out that you made no mention of from your quoting me. such as:
link from below in a previous reply by me "Paper-Thin Plastic Film Soaks Up Sun to Create Solar Energy"

[Corey]

Originally Posted by founder

Excuse, that I did not use the SARCASM STRONG Tag to mark this.

It's since long time proven, that the energy for the production is far less than the energy produced by the photovoltaic.

So are you saying it takes more energy to produce the solar grid than it generates over its entire life?

If this is true then it is not a green solution for the whole point is to get more energy out than what goes in. pollution goes hand in hand with this.

total energy consumed or made goes down then the total pollution goes down as well.

lets say that to produce a solar grid takes 500KWH of electricity to produce
and over the lifetime of using that solar grid you get only 300KWH of electricity. This is "not" a green solution you did more pollution to make it than the energy given back over the life time of the solar grid.

Now say that producing a solar grid uses 100KWH to produce and it generates 600KWH over its life then this "is" a green solution. Because you eliminated 500kwh worth of Co2+equivalent

But in both cases if the material is not recyclable we will eventually run out as we are running out of oil and other non renewable resources. That is what makes it not sustainable. If it is recyclable then we can reuse the material as much as possible making it a sustainable process.

I am not here to fight I am here to encourage caution against just jumping in blind or with little knowledge of the "Total Impact" Or "total Cost"
:peace: