What do the Greens want? 17

[TheTick]

SacreBleu: consider peace made on my end. Also, don't get the impression that I'm that fond of conservatives, either. I voted for Badnarik. <

http://www.badnarik.org>

re: DDT:
Part of my drift was that raptors are much more abundant than they were when I was younger. Not everything in the environment is in decline. There are now falcons, ospreys, and eagles in Milwaukee!

We are not squatters or guests on this planet. We live here. We are free to change things and make ourselves at home. Expecting the human race to live without leaving a trace of its existence is ludicrous. While we're at it, why don't we legislate against beaver dams, coral reefs, and deer trails!

 

[Maui]

"Greens" seems like a more politically correct term than the one I most often hear - "Granolas". For those of you who are not familiar with this term, it refers to the nutty snack food that is favored by many ardent environmentalists.


Maui

 

[aspearin1]

"Greens" is pretty PC. I've never heard "Granolas." I have heard of them referred to as "Crunchies," which comes from the noise they make while eating granola. I, like many of you, have a great love for the Green ideals. I even married a "crunchy." But I'm also an engineer.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[BJC]

Scotty UK
If your not a real idealist you're not an engineer, just another technologist.
Engineers are the ultimate economist and idealist. The birkenstock crowd may want a hybred vehicle but who's going to make it for them, a bunch of lawyers working in a cave?
Money is the measure of efficiency, people will buy what cost least. The way things work now a lot of cost are never reflected in the cost of goods or energy. Enviromental cost are moved Bangladesh or someother third world country, a cost you don't see in your Nikes.

I just read that a wind turbine in ND will kill 3 birds per year. Are we oging to live with that or can we (engineers) put LEDs or whilstle in the blades? we needa n engineer and an ornathologist for that.
Nothing is perfect or undoabel, giving up is fatal.

 

[QCE]

Just to clear up one thing:

Granola - Rolled oats mixed with various ingredients, such as dried fruit, brown sugar, and nuts, and used especially as a breakfast cereal.

Nutty snack food - hee hee.

OK - back to:

"On the one hand you have Green parties all over Europe saying we must switch to alternative flues soucres such as wind energy and on the other their saying what a blight they are on the country side.

What way do the Greens they want it?"

Is it so bad to have pros and cons to new energy installations.

I would like a new energy source that is green and has no cons but that is not going to happen.

I think that most people would agree that reduced emissions are a good thing.

So how do we get reduced emissions?

By adding cleaner fuel supplies. Hydro and wind have helped in many areas to reduce emissions caused by burning fossil fuels but of course they have other environmental issues.

I personnal believe that the more power generated by wind and hydro the better. It reduces burning fossil fuels and I personnally think it is better for the environment. I also understand that in many, many places hydro and wind can not supply 100% of the power need. I understand that we need to burn fossil fuels. I understand that wind is intermitent and that you need a constant supply from other sources.

Wind power has been developing at an amazing pace. Noise and bird fatalities, two of the main complaints of wind power have for the most part been reduced. I hope that improvements in this technology continue and that it can supply a larger part of the energy mix. Wind farms with 100's of 250kW units are in the past. The new wind turbines can produce up to 5 MW and the max output has been steadily increasing. I also hope to see improvements in this.

As far as complaints on the visual landscape. I think that the units should be placed as best as possible to reduce landscape tarnishing. However I would rather see wind turbines then a coal fired power station in my backyard.

 

[sms]

SacreBleu-
Maybe not the ramblers club, but a number of other groups in Holland have been protesting the "horizon, and noise pollution" of the wind turbines in Holland. At least they were a couple years ago when I lived in Rotterdam.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> However I would rather see wind turbines then a coal fired power station in my backyard.

I'll bet the Greens would rather see the wind turbines in your backyard too. That would be much better than seeing them in their own backyards.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps if the ramblers organized a boycott of electricity...

 

[ScottyUK]

"If your not a real idealist you're not an engineer, just another technologist."

Engineering is almost always a compromise: we strive for perfection, but it is never attained. The engineer adjusts the balances to achieve the optimum result, whatever the criteria it may be judged by, trading one ideal against another in search of the best fit to the specification at hand.

I'm puzzled that by advocating a compromise which balances the needs of our society against the desire for clean energy I become a 'technologist' and no longer an engineer? Practical and realistic, certainly, but those are things I associate with engineers. I've always considered that the researchers pursuing dreams and ideas that may one day bear fruit were idealists, pursuing a what may be but a dream. I admire their dedication and am frequently in awe of their talent, yet I'm also glad that they are not running the country.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[PSE]

"What are you rebelling against?"

"Whaddya Got?" (from Rebel Without a Cause)

It can't harm the environment (air, land water, flora or fauna), can't be in my backyard, can't cost too much, can't restrict my sense of freedom or esthetic. That's all I want.

Hopefully I did not miss anything in terms of what a "Green" wants (less I offend). The statement "You want it good, fast cheap (choose 2) does not seem to exist for Greens, they want it all.

Lest I sound anti-Green (I am not), I do consider and attempt to minimize my impact on the environment and try to support rational (In my view) green initiatives.

 

[jmw]

Interesting to compare the writing style of the pro-windfarm and anti windfarm groups e.g. the link i provided to the latter.
In some of the articles pro wind farms, I note they are strong on emotive rhetoric and "sound-bites" while the article I cite is very analytical and factual.
At this time there is new legislation being introduced to impose sulphur caps on marine fuels (MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 18). This despite the fact that some environmentalists say that SOX actually acts to block some of the heat recieved from the sun.
If you visit the European Green Party website you will see that that claim that marine fuel contains 500 times the amount of sulphur in fuels used for road transport.

That's it.
Nothing further.
They don't say that marine fuel is one of the most economical fuels around and compares extremely favourably with road fuels on a Kg/kilometer/litre of fuel basis nor that most SOX is absorbed harmlessly.
To find a more balanced view you need to visit the SEAT website.

We should not discount nuclear energy. Too many people have been convinced by the propaganda that every nuclear reactor is like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl despite the fact that modern nuclear plant is far more advanced and significantly safer. Of course, it would be nice to have fussion energy some time but fission energy is probably the best of the fuels available.
Finland has quite a program for new plants, i'm told, while other countries are cutting back.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[QCE]

With its 5.4 million inhabitants, Denmark also proudly tops world consumption of wind power, with 21.1 percent of its total electrical consumption produced in wind turbines in June 2004.

Before Denmark depended on 90% of it's energy from foreign oil. Even in Denmark it is cheaper to burn oil then use windpower. I have a feeling that the price of oil will go up before the price of wind as a fuel for the power.

jmw,

I'm not really sure how someone can be antiwindpower from an engineering point of view. OK so it is not the most economical and it kills birds but really antiwindpower. I also don't see how putting a wind turbine in a field and getting power without paying for a fuel supply can be more expensive then buying fuel to burn to spin your turbine. We just havn't tried hard enough yet.

Jeez what do you want a power supply that has no environmental impact?

I'm ok with nuclear power.

 

[SacreBleu]

Killing a few birds in a few isolated areas (wind farms) is a non-issue. Every day, vast numbers of people are killed by murder, war, starvation, neglect, etc.

jmw,
Exactly how is SOX absorbed harmlessly? Does it cause acid rain?

 

[PSE]

SacreBleu

To some groups, those birds are more important than the loss of people. They are among the same types that will pound nails and spikes into trees in hopes of destroying the lumberman's chainsaw (and potentially the lumbermen themselves).

No solution on power generation will please everyone. My personal preference would be migration through the obsolescence of inefficient plants over a scheduled time frame. As technology advances so that the amount of pollutants/megawatt decreases, the limit lowers accordingly as to what now becomes an inefficient plant. A utility would be given the chance to upgrade a "non compliant" plant or to decommission it, raze it, and start over.

Regards,

 

[epoisses]

QCE, what do the Danish build windmills from, wood?

 

[jmw]

My comments were directed at marine fuel and not land based fuel utilisation and I was realy concerned with misinformation which abounds.

So the first fact is that SOX is not a greenhouse gas contributor:

But don't knock SOx too hard. A study by Camegie Mellon University last year showed ships are the world's worst polluters per ton of fuel. It's long been known that SOx pollution can slightly reduce the greenhouse effect and ships are emitting so much sulphur in the north Atlantic, they may be having an effect - the add rain response to global warming.

http://www.m-a-g.fsnet.co.uk/misc/fuelling_the_fire.htm

"The[y] add rain response to global warming."
Which means what?

Try this:

SOx emissions produce sulphate aerosols in the troposphere. These aerosols cool the climate in two ways: directly by scattering and absorbing radiation, and indirectly by providing seeds for cloud formation.

http://www.e-m-a-i-l.nu/tepi/oldmeth/CC6.htm

and from the same source:

Sulphur oxides are mainly emitted by fossil fuel combustion (especially power stations). SOx emissions are the largest anthropogenic source of aerosols. Over heavily industrialised regions, aerosol cooling may counteract nearly all of the warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

It isn't clear, is it?

"Sulphur oxides are mainly emitted by fossil fuel combustion"

Hmmm.
Investigation reveals that two thirds of all sulphur dioxide entering the atmosphere is from natural sources. I guess this is the average figure though my sources don't say, and i have always been led to understand that when a volcanic eruption occurs that is rich in sulphur, we face the prospect of climate cooling.

SO2 is oxidised to SO3.
40% is returned to earth as dry precipitate so, apparenlty, the term acid rain is misleading.
The principal concern about Sulphur emissions is the impact of health and vegetation.
In the context of marine fuel, most is burned at sea and, so the argument goes, has little impact on the marine environment.

None the less, the figures are impressive if presented in a particular way. Hence my comment regarding the Green Party declaration that marine fuels have 500 times as much sulphur as road transport fuels.

What is lacking is any useful data from the site about the relative amounts of marine fuel compared to road fuel used or any indication as to the % of the total sulphur emissions they contribute, over land or sea.

In any event, there is a policy to reduce sulphur emissions from marine fuels. There is a global cap of 4.5% (which, curiously, is higher than the typical sulphur content on marine fuels, so don't expect any ebenefits from this aspect of marine pollution legislation just yet, we need to wait for the revised limits as and when enacted.) In Sulphur emission control areas (currently the Baltic sea though the North sea and the Mediterranean are expected to be added soon) the cap is 1.5% sulphur. This will reduce to 0.8% in 2008, maybe.
In ports and harbours the limit is very much lower indeed.

In some land based installations the limits are already much lower. PREPA, for example, (Puerto Rico Electric Power Association) has been limited to low sulphur fuels already and has targets of 0.75% set for the next couple of years and can avoid a further reduction to 0.5% if they use exhaust gas scrubbing.

The net effect?
increased global warming.
Increased cost of goods.
Fuel accounts for over 70% of a ships operating cost and the premium for low sulphur fuel is around a 30-40% increase. We will pay this in increased transport costs though, because of the efficiency of marine freight fuel usage this may not be too onerous.

The key concern i have is that if we take steps to control pollutants or change any behaviour, we should know that it will cost us money. We should know that that money is well spent and produces effective results.
We want no surprises.

On the question of wind power, as i was always told, there is no such thing as a free lunch; the wind may be free but Wind energy is expensive simply becauses it costs money and resources to design, build, install and maintain wind turbines.

I don't say more, the reference I cited in an earlier post should be sufficient and you will discover that it is to do with more than the impact on the raptor population.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[QCE]

jmw:

Does a nuclear or fossil fuel burning plant not cost money and resources to design build, install and maintain?

Some questions that would be better asked:

1. Is it possible to design windpower that is more econonical then fossil fuel burning plants?

2. Is it possible to reduce the bad environmental aspects of windpower?

3. If you include the emissions from building the windfarms is it greater then the emissions from building a fossil fuel powerplant plus the fossil fuel burning of said plant?

4. Would peple pay 10 - 20% more for their electricity if it was generated in an more environmentally way?

My opinion:

1. I'm not sure if it is possible at the moment but in 50 years if the fuel prices keep going up I think it is possible. I think it is always possible to design something better, I'm an engineer after all.

2. It has been happening over the last couple of years I see no reason for it not to continue.

3. No

4. People do it, so who am I to argue. I don't have the option but if I did i would consider it. I currently have all of my power supplied by hydropower. It is the cheapest I believe in North America. My power bill is currently $30/month. I was paying $100/month when I lived where the electricity can from coal.

Epoisses

To answer your question - No.

 

[QCE]

"as i was always told, there is no such thing as a free lunch"

True - no free lunch but I'm looking for a better lunch at half the price!

 

[TheTick]

Free lunch is at home. To paraphrase George Carlin paraphrasing Bodhisattva: "The food is not the lunch."

 

[davefitz]

jmw:
one reason for reducing SO2 emissions from marine diesels at port is to reduce local SO2 levels, and another reason is to promote the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel , which would allow the use of an exhaust catalyst to reduce NOx and another oxidation catalyst to reduce unburned particles. IN the US, the 15 ppm S diesel is mandated for 2006 land based diesels, and similar requirements are already in place for marine diesels in some EU countries.

The SO2 aerosol effect on net earth albedo, or net transfer of solar heat to the earth's surface, is significant but smaller than effect of particulate matter which is exhausted by coal fired plants and by volcanos. I recall when mt. Pinataubo ( Philipines) erupted in the 1990's, it was claimed that the volcanic ash effect on world solar heat gain would easily offset any presumed heating by added CO2.

There is also some concern that if we succeed in convincing China to scrub and filter its coal fired gases, the reduction in particle matter to the atmosphere will cause a step increase in net solar heat hitting hte earths surface.