Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Are you against solar energy?

climate change environment clean energy

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 10:50 AM

Brighten-Solar-installation_Santa-Barbar


  • 0

#22 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 10:59 AM

soal.jpg


  • 0

#23 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:20 AM

_86912331_solar_roof_1920.jpg


  • 0

#24 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31352 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:42 AM

Are you for wind turbines grogginess?


  • 0

#25 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:54 AM

thebalbinapi.jpg


  • 0

#26 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:59 AM

Are you for wind turbines grogginess?

 

I'll write about wind energy at a later date.

  • 0

#27 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:13 PM

sustainability_0.jpg?itok=gO0gF2Dv


  • 0

#28 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:17 PM

solar_farm_floating_china_power_plant_su


  • 0

#29 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:27 PM

solar-panel-highway-1.jpg


  • 0

#30 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31352 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:32 PM

 

 

I'll write about wind energy at a later date.

 

Yeh don't tell us how awesome it is because it is disgusting.....You GloBULL warming cultists pretend you want to save the planet with bullshit by killing everything that crosses your path

 

screenhunter_7929-mar-14-22-40.gif


  • 0

#31 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:34 PM

sun-update-1.jpg


  • 0

#32 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:48 PM

Yeh don't tell us how awesome it is because it is disgusting.....You GloBULL warming cultists pretend you want to save the planet with bullshit by killing everything that crosses your path

 

screenhunter_7929-mar-14-22-40.gif

 

I favor the vertical turbine.
 
Nobody has written about those.

  • 0

#33 RobertD

RobertD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21296 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:51 PM

There is no energy "crisis".
It's another scam to tax people into poverty.
  • 2

#34 Atossa

Atossa

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42866 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:03 PM


"by relaying solar power to Earth"
"beam the energy to Earth"

How is this done?


https://www.wired.co...nergy-solution/





Known = microwave or laser


Space-Based Solar Power | Department of Energy

[...]

" The idea of capturing solar power in space for use as energy on Earth has been around since the beginning of the space age. In the last few years, however, scientists around the globe -- and several researchers at the Energy Departments own Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) -- have shown how recent technological developments could make this concept a reality.

On earth, solar power is greatly reduced by night, cloud cover, atmosphere and seasonality. Some 30 percent of all incoming solar radiation never makes it to ground level. In space the sun is always shining, the tilt of the Earth doesn't prevent the collection of power and theres no atmosphere to reduce the intensity of the suns rays. This makes putting solar panels into space a tempting possibility. Additionally, SBSP can be used to get reliable and clean energy to people in remote communities around the world, without relying on the traditional grid to a large local power plant.

How does it work?

Self-assembling satellites are launched into space, along with reflectors and a microwave or laser power transmitter. Reflectors or inflatable mirrors spread over a vast swath of space, directing solar radiation onto solar panels. These panels convert solar power into either a microwave or a laser, and beam uninterrupted power down to Earth. On Earth, power-receiving stations collect the beam and add it to the electric grid.

The two most commonly discussed designs for SBSP are a large, deeper space microwave transmitting satellite and a smaller, nearer laser transmitting satellite.

Microwave Transmitting Satellites

Microwave transmitting satellites orbit Earth in geostationary orbit (GEO), about 35,000 km above Earths surface. Designs for microwave transmitting satellites are massive, with solar reflectors spanning up to 3 km and weighing over 80,000 metric tons. They would be capable of generating multiple gigawatts of power, enough to power a major U.S. city.

The long wavelength of the microwave requires a long antenna, and allows power to be beamed through the Earths atmosphere, rain or shine, at safe, low intensity levels hardly stronger than the midday sun. Birds and planes wouldn't notice much of anything flying across their paths.

The estimated cost of launching, assembling and operating a microwave-equipped GEO satellite is in the tens of billions of dollars. It would likely require as many as 40 launches for all necessary materials to reach space. On Earth, the rectenna used for collecting the microwave beam would be anywhere between 3 and 10 km in diameter, a huge area of land, and a challenge to purchase and develop.

Laser Transmitting Satellites

Laser transmitting satellites, as described by our friends at LLNL, orbit in low Earth orbit (LEO) at about 400 km above the Earth's surface. Weighing in in at less than 10 metric tons, this satellite is a fraction of the weight of its microwave counterpart. This design is cheaper too; some predict that a laser-equipped SBSP satellite would cost nearly $500 million to launch and operate. It would be possible to launch the entire self-assembling satellite in a single rocket, drastically reducing the cost and time to production. Also, by using a laser transmitter, the beam will only be about 2 meters in diameter, instead of several km, a drastic and important reduction.

To make this possible, the satellites solar power beaming system employs a diode-pumped alkali laser. First demonstrated at LLNL in 2002 -- and currently still under development there -- this laser would be about the size of a kitchen table, and powerful enough to beam power to Earth at an extremely high efficiency, over 50 percent.

While this satellite is far lighter, cheaper and easier to deploy than its microwave counterpart, serious challenges remain. The idea of high-powered lasers in space could draw on fears of the militarization of space. This challenge could be remedied by limiting the direction that which the laser system could transmit its power.

At its smaller size, there is a correspondingly lower capacity of about 1 to 10 megawatts per satellite. Therefore, this satellite would be best as part of a fleet of similar satellites, used together.

You could say SBSP is a long way off or pie in the sky (puns intended) -- and you'd largely correct. But many technologies already exist to make this feasible, and many aren't far behind. While the Energy Department isn't currently developing any SBSP technologies specifically, many of the remaining technologies needed for SBSP could be developed independently in the years to come. And while we don't know the future of power harvested from space, we are excited to see ideas like this take flight (okay last pun, I promise). "

https://energy.gov/a...sed-solar-power

.

Edited by Atossa, 04 January 2018 - 05:13 PM.

  • 0

#35 Atossa

Atossa

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42866 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:18 PM


If Americans can't do it, Russians can.

How is this done?




If Putin is as smart as I think he is...
he has been on top of this from the beginning.

.
  • 0

#36 RobertD

RobertD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21296 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 08:55 PM

No need to harvest the sun when water wheels can deliver as much electricity as you want for next to nothing.

https://goo.gl/images/SHRUoE
  • 0

#37 LiebenUndLeben

LiebenUndLeben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 12:55 AM

If I am in Death Valley, California, in Summer, I hate solar energy.

In cool/cold situations, I love solar energy.


  • 0

#38 Atossa

Atossa

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42866 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 01:10 AM

If I am in Death Valley, California, in Summer, I hate solar energy.
In cool/cold situations, I love solar energy.



Death Valley

Space-based solar energy could generate electricity necessary for air conditioning and desalination for irrigation and drinking water.

.
  • 0

#39 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 11:29 AM

Low Oxygen Crisis in World's Oceans
 
 
 
 
Jan 05 2018
 
 
 
 
 
13961015000115_Test_PhotoI.jpg
 
In the past 50 years, the amount of water in the open ocean with zero oxygen has gone up more than fourfold.
 
In coastal water bodies, including estuaries and seas, low-oxygen sites have increased more than tenfold since 1950. Scientists expect oxygen to continue dropping even outside these zones as Earth warms.
 
To halt the decline, the world needs to rein in both climate change and nutrient pollution, an international team of scientists including Lisa Levin, a biological oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, asserted in a new paper published Jan. 4 in Science.
 
"Oxygen is fundamental to life in the oceans," said Denise Breitburg, lead author and marine ecologist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. "The decline in ocean oxygen ranks among the most serious effects of human activities on the Earth's environment."
 
"It's a tremendous loss to all the support services that rely on recreation and tourism, hotels and restaurants and taxi drivers and everything else," said Levin. "The reverberations of unhealthy ecosystems in the ocean can be extensive."
 
The study came from a team of scientists from GO2NE (Global Ocean Oxygen Network), a new working group created in 2016 by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The review paper is the first to take such a sweeping look at the causes, consequences and solutions to low oxygen worldwide, in both the open ocean and coastal waters. The article highlights the biggest dangers to the ocean and society, and what it will take to keep Earth's waters healthy and productive.
 
The Stakes
 
"Approximately half of the oxygen on Earth comes from the ocean," said Vladimir Ryabinin, executive secretary of the International Oceanographic Commission that formed the GO2NE group. "However, combined effects of nutrient loading and climate change are greatly increasing the number and size of 'dead zones' in the open ocean and coastal waters, where oxygen is too low to support most marine life."
 
In areas traditionally called "dead zones," like those in Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, oxygen plummets to levels so low many animals suffocate and die. As fish avoid these zones, their habitats shrink and they become more vulnerable to predators or fishing. But the problem goes far beyond "dead zones," the authors point out. Even smaller oxygen declines can stunt growth in animals, hinder reproduction and lead to disease or even death. It also can trigger the release of dangerous chemicals such as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas up to 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, and toxic hydrogen sulfide. While some animals can thrive in dead zones, overall biodiversity falls.
 
Climate change is the key culprit in the open ocean. Warming surface waters make it harder for oxygen to reach the ocean interior. Furthermore, as the ocean as a whole gets warmer, it holds less oxygen. In coastal waters, excess nutrient pollution from land creates algal blooms, which drain oxygen as they die and decompose. In an unfortunate twist, animals also need more oxygen in warmer waters, even as it is disappearing.
 
People's livelihoods are also on the line, the scientists reported, especially in developing nations. Smaller, artisanal fisheries may be unable to relocate when low oxygen destroys their harvests or forces fish to move elsewhere. In the Philippines, fish kills in a single town's aquaculture pens cost more than $10 million. Coral reefs, a key tourism attraction in many countries, also can waste away without enough oxygen.
 
Some popular fisheries could benefit, at least in the short term. Nutrient pollution can stimulate production of food for fish. In addition, when fish are forced to crowd to escape low oxygen, they can become easier to catch. But in the long run, this could result in overfishing and damage to the economy.
 
Winning the War: A Three-Pronged Approach
 
To keep low oxygen in check, the scientists said the world needs to take on the issue from three angles:
 
Address the causes: nutrient pollution and climate change. While neither issue is simple or easy, the steps needed to win can benefit people as well as the environment. Better septic systems and sanitation can protect human health and keep pollution out of the water. Cutting fossil fuel emissions not only cuts greenhouse gases and fights climate change, but also slashes dangerous air pollutants like mercury.
 
Protect vulnerable marine life. With some low oxygen unavoidable, it is crucial to protect at-risk fisheries from further stress. According to the GO2NE team, this could mean creating marine protected areas or no-catch zones in areas animals use to escape low oxygen, or switching to fish that are not as threatened by falling oxygen levels. Improve low-oxygen tracking worldwide. Scientists have a decent grasp of how much oxygen the ocean could lose in the future, but they do not know exactly where those low-oxygen zones will be. Enhanced monitoring, especially in developing countries, and numerical models will help pinpoint which places are most at risk and determine the most effective solutions.
 
"This is a problem we can solve," Breitburg said. "Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline." As proof Breitburg points to the ongoing recovery of Chesapeake Bay, where nitrogen pollution has dropped 24 percent since its peak thanks to better sewage treatment, better farming practices and successful laws like the Clean Air Act. While some low-oxygen zones persist, the area of the Chesapeake with zero oxygen has almost disappeared. "Tackling climate change may seem more daunting," she added, "but doing it is critical for stemming the decline of oxygen in our oceans, and for nearly every aspect of life on our planet."
 
Adapted from materials originally provided by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.
 
__________________________________________________________________
 
__________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#40 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6758 posts

Posted 05 January 2018 - 11:53 AM

Interior rescinds climate, conservation policies because they're 'inconsistent' with Trump's energy goals
 
 
 
 
January 5, 2018
 
 
 
 
The Interior Department's number-two official quietly issued a secretarial order just before Christmas rescinding several climate change and conservation policies issued under the Obama administration, saying they were "inconsistent" with President Trump's quest for energy independence.
 
Secretarial Order 3360, signed Dec. 22 by Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, wipes away four separate directives and policy manuals aimed at showing departmental employees how to minimize the environmental impact of activities on federal land and in federal waters, and calls for the review of a fifth one that applies to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Instead, it directs officials to reinstate and update guidance issued during the final year of George W. Bush's second term by Jan. 22.
 
Interior aims to mitigate any negative environmental impacts in ways that are consistent with federal law, transparent and "are consistent with direction provided by Congress and provide a level of certainty to all involved parties," the order states.
 
While the documents in question are highly technical, the move underscores the extent to which Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his deputies are uprooting policies and procedures aimed at factoring climate and environmental effects into the department's decision-making process. The manuals and handbooks include detailed instructions on how officials at the Bureau of Land Management, for example, should minimize activities on the agency's land that could harm certain species or accelerate climate change.
 
Alex Daue, assistant director of energy and climate at The Wilderness Society, said in an interview that Interior officials will still face the same legal obligations to reduce negative environmental impacts on public land, but "they no longer have the tools to do so efficiently and effectively."
 
Officials spent years compiling a list of "best practices" in this area, Daue said, and the Trump administration "just ripped them up."
 
Interior officials did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Zinke has been sharply critical of the idea of "mitigation," where the federal government requires companies to pay to offset the negative environmental impact their activities have on public land.
 
Bernhardt wrote that the order "is intended to improve the internal management of the Department."
 
Jim Lyons, who served as Interior's deputy assistant secretary for Land and Minerals Management under the Obama administration, said in an interview that revoking these policies will undermine the kind of landscape-scale conservation espoused by scientists as well as many policymakers.
 
"They're determined to lease and develop every acre they possibly can, which will minimize the potential for conserving these landscapes in subsequent administrations," said Lyons, who is now a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, and a lecturer at Yale University. "They're quite efficient, and they know exactly what they want to do."
 
Interior has also invited public comment on the mitigation policy adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November 2016, which says the agency will "at minimum" require "no net loss" of habitat when approving regulated activities. Several oil and gas groups, including the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Production & Exploration Council, will submit comments Friday asking for the policy to be revoked on the grounds that it "prioritizes conservation objectives" over other uses of public land.
 
__________________________________________________________________
 
__________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, environment, clean energy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru