g'day tom,

first up i think we humans needs to look at the type of homes designed and built for us, nowadays much more so than back in the 1900's they are un-ncessarily large macmansion affairs designed and indoctrinated to look and feel like what we need and want and that is far from the facts. the houses built are to suit the building industry and all its hanger oners, so we have these structures which are totally inefficient in the use of resources not only to build them but to run them thereafter.

renewables are and the way it looks, looking at the tech' over the past decades, are going to be too expensive for the masses, and as with all things indoctrinated no one wants to do the math on the pollution caused in the manufacture, transportation, obsolescence and disposal of these systems. if we are to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels etc.,. then these technologies sue a lot of componenet from that fossil base.

and due to the amount of power needed to transport power over large distances the renewables should be seen as something that is going to need to be decentralised, to get maximum available power for the use it is intended for.

but as you say everything has down sides we need to go for the systems with the least and more managable down sides. they have the technology to make coal fired stations ceaner burning, so why don't we use that for now until we can develop an energy source that all sections of the community can afford. i've heard a lot on geo-thermal but then there isn't a lot of interest seemingly in developing it.

and over here they are planting exceedingly ugly wind farms where should be planted forest bio-diversity to repair the climate damage and increase the chances of regular rainfall. adn the same can be said for ugly solar panel farms, which realy need full on sun to function (so even if all homes ahd solar fitted, solar doesn't work on cloudy days, wind would be the better option but then those propellor driven units could be very unsafe in a big storm, here again they are working with an old technology instead of developing turbine wind collectors).

just doesn't make current sense for us over here to be scrapping our 30 or so coal fired power stations in prefference for a more dangerous bi-product causing source, and then keep mining coal (which causes its fair share of pollution), so that another country can increase its coal fired stations from 300 to 600 and buy our coal to fire them, keeping in mind our contribution to the world pollutants problems is around 2%, what's there's?

len

Here is a link that might be useful: len's garden page

Sorry, I meant to post this on the sustaining our environment forums. Thanks for your comments Len. Tom

looks apropriate for this group as well tom,

all about being "green"

len

tom,

where abouts is this other forum you mentioned?

tia

len

Len, here's the link. Tom

Here is a link that might be useful: Sustaining Our Environment

I was about to ask the same thing, len. I couldn't find it anywhere! Thanks for the link, Tom.

Dee

thanks tom,

len

I agree there is no perfect solution, but here in CA, I would pin my hopes on wave power and subsea turbines. This comes from looking at the alternatives for decades in an environmental NGO. Open ocean wave power is different than onshore or tidal power generation, which can be very disruptive to marine life.

Wave power devices extract energy directly from surface waves or from pressure fluctuations below the surface. Renewable energy analysts believe there is enough energy in the ocean waves to provide up to 2 terawatts of electricity. (A terawatt is equal to a trillion watts. Wave power can't be harnessed everywhere. Wave-power rich areas of the world include the western coasts of Scotland, northern Canada, southern Africa, Australia, and the northeastern and northwestern coasts of the United States. In the Pacific Northwest alone, it's feasible that wave energy could produce 40Â70 kilowatts (kW) per meter (3.3 feet) of western coastline.

Offshore systems are situated in deep water, typically of more than 40 meters. Sophisticated mechanismsÂlike the Salter DuckÂuse the bobbing motion of the waves to power a pump that creates electricity. Other offshore devices use hoses connected to floats that ride the waves. The rise and fall of the float stretches and relaxes the hose, which pressurizes the water, which, in turn, rotates a turbine. Specially built seagoing vessels can also capture the energy of offshore waves. These floating platforms create electricity by funneling waves through internal turbines and then back into the sea.

Additionally, these turbines can split saltwater to produce hydrogen, which must become our next fuel source for cars and industry instead of petroleum. This plan has the potential to almost completely mitigate catastrophic climate change over time, although it is not wiothout some lesser environmental impacts.

dicot, right now a group is doing tidal current (not wave) power generating turbine studies near us at Deception Pass, Washington. There will be studies done in 4 or 5 areas here where the tidal currents are strong and the water deep. Tom

Tidal power generates far, far more electricity that wave power does, it just a matter of whether marine life in the area is adversely affected. I know SF is looking at it seriously too.

Here's two good wave power examples:

Really Interesting Post, thanks. Being in an inland sea we don't have great waves for power generation. Somewhere along the line there are choices to be made- can we mitigate sea life damage from sub sea power generation or do we want to increase the # of coal fired plants. None are perfect and as has been said for centuries: the biggest enemy of progress is perfection. Tom