Alternative energy as a threat to the environment?

[BrokenPaw]

I've heard proposals for extracting energy from ocean waves.  I've heard proposals for extracting energy from the deep ocean (either using flow-powered turbines to get it from the deep ocean currents, or harnessing the thermal differences between thermal layers in the ocean).  We all know about wind farms, of course.

What got me thinking is:  If we're extracting energy from these winds or currents or thermal layers or what-have-you, they suddenly have less energy than they did before.  So what happens when we begin extracting energy from these natural flows on a massive basis?  Can enough wind farms actually alter the weather in a region?  Can deep-current turbines mess up the natural flows within the ocean that support its ecology?  Would heat-transfer energy extraction that homogenizes the thermal layers in the ocean alter its ecology, at least in a local sense?  Can wave farms destroy the delicate balance of energy transfer at the coastline that supports things like reefs and shallow-water life?

Or am I just out of my tree?

-BP

[K Frame]

This is a political thread...

how?

Moving to Roundtable before I go out of MY tree...

[mtnbkr]

Dunno about the water-based stuff, but wind farms shouldn't have any more effect than a collection of tall buildings or a city full of skyscrapers.

Chris

[BrokenPaw]

This is a political thread...

how?

Cos I'm a dumbarse and had the wrong tab in firefox open when I posted.

Sorry.

-BP

[K Frame]

Exactly.

Remember, you're not removing all of the energy, you only removing a small portion of it.

[Manedwolf]

Go down to the ocean with an eyedropper. Take some water out of the ocean.

There. That's about how much windfarms and all other things would "affect" the planet.

The planet is REALLY FREAKING HUGE. Go out on a boat during the sort of storm where the waves are above you. You'll realize how big it is, and how very very small you are.

[K Frame]

"Cos I'm a dumbarse and had the wrong tab in firefox open when I posted."

Except for the fact that you actually admitted to something, you have a bright future in politics. 

[BrokenPaw]

"Cos I'm a dumbarse and had the wrong tab in firefox open when I posted."

Except for the fact that you actually admitted to something, you have a bright future in politics. 

You've met me.  Can you imagine a soccer mom voting for me...ever?

I understand the types of magnitudes that we're talking about.  But the greenies are all about "delicate balances" and such.  If putting carbon dioxide into the air can destroy the delicate balance of nature, then how come slowing the wind or ocean down by 0.00000n% won't also upset the delicate balance of nature?

Mostly I'm working up talking points with which to abuse enviro-fascists.

-BP

[Manedwolf]

"Cos I'm a dumbarse and had the wrong tab in firefox open when I posted."

Except for the fact that you actually admitted to something, you have a bright future in politics. 

You've met me.  Can you imagine a soccer mom voting for me...ever?

I understand the types of magnitudes that we're talking about.  But the greenies are all about "delicate balances" and such.  If putting carbon dioxide into the air can destroy the delicate balance of nature, then how come slowing the wind or ocean down by 0.00000n% won't also upset the delicate balance of nature?

Mostly I'm working up talking points with which to abuse enviro-fascists.

-BP

Delicate balances?

Like, when a volcano erupts with the force of hundreds of atomic bombs, and spews more "greenhouse gases" than humanity has in its entire history?

See what's wrong with their secular religion? They don't account for when nature blows the crap out itself on a regular basis, with volcanoes, fires, hurricanes...Mount Pinatubo ejected 30 million tons of sulphur dioxide in 1991. And that didn't affect the planet for long!

Seriously, when they mention carbon, just show them a picture of a volcano erupting with a stratospheric cloud, and ask if they want to try to ban them, too.

[ilbob]

the greenies are wrong about most everything these days.

wind farms are less offensive to the environment than skyscrapers packed to the gills with masses of human beings.

[BrokenPaw]

Delicate balances?

Like, when a volcano erupts with the force of hundreds of atomic bombs, and spews more "greenhouse gases" than humanity has in its entire history?

Yeah.  Those balances.   

I've never done the show-them-a-picture thing, but I have argued the volcano point before.  The usual response is "but volcanoes are naaaatural." With the implicit and unshakable belief that all things natural are good, whereas all things man-made are bad.

-BP

[alex_trebek]

Don't know if this helps or not but...

I remember seeing a conclusion of an energy balance from this proposed alternative energy source
http://www.gedwardcook.com/wavegenerator.html

The claim was (and I cannot confirm or deny it) that if all the world's power was obtained using these, then the Earth's rotation would slow enough to lose 1 day every 2000 years.  I dont know if this meets your definition of disturbing the balance or not...

You get a brownie point for recognizing the first law of thermodynamics though. 

Go down to the ocean with an eyedropper. Take some water out of the ocean.

There. That's about how much windfarms and all other things would "affect" the planet.

The planet is REALLY FREAKING HUGE. Go out on a boat during the sort of storm where the waves are above you. You'll realize how big it is, and how very very small you are.

While more or less accurate, I would characterize this as taking a dropper of water off of the planet for every person on the earth multiple times a day.  Then you ask yourself, "At what point does this make a detrimental impact?"  Eventually it will.  The question, however, is it far enough away that we really don't have to worry about it?

[Manedwolf]

Delicate balances?

Like, when a volcano erupts with the force of hundreds of atomic bombs, and spews more "greenhouse gases" than humanity has in its entire history?

Yeah.  Those balances.   

I've never done the show-them-a-picture thing, but I have argued the volcano point before.  The usual response is "but volcanoes are naaaatural." With the implicit and unshakable belief that all things natural are good, whereas all things man-made are bad.

-BP

That's actually a relatively new and, I feel, dangerous movement.

They are quite literally anti-human.

[Tallpine]

I'm more concerned with solar energy.  What will we do when we use it all up and the sun goes out ? 

[K Frame]

Did anyone see the article by the university professor some months ago in which he said that human were taking far more than our fair share of solar radiation and it needed to be stopped? I wish I still had the link. I've never seen anything so foolish in my entire life.

[BrokenPaw]

I'm more concerned with solar energy.  What will we do when we use it all up and the sun goes out ? 

Duh.  You replace the batteries.   

I don't see why the greenies are all about solar power anyway; if we built a power station on Earth that required you you slather yourself in SPF 50 every time you got within line-of-sight of it to avoid getting cancer, it'd cause protests with badly-lettered signs worldwide.

So why isn't there a "ban the nuclear reactor in the sky" movement?

Huh.  New slogan for nuclear reactors:  "Nuclear reactors: safer for your kids than a day at the beach"

-BP

[Tallpine]

Oh, but the nuclear sun is natural 

[Nick1911]

Ultimately, energy comes from exactly two sources on earth - the sun, and nuclear reactions.  The fuel we burn is a derivative of solar energy from a few hundred thousand years back.  Ditto for coal.  Firewood?  Solar energy.

We need to come up with an efficient way to extract energy from one of these two sources, and exploit it.  We figured one of them out in the 40's-50's...  At a thousand watts per square meter on a good day, the solar option is impracticable.

[Iain]

Volcanoes? Check. Keep going.

[K Frame]

NO NO NO!

ANY source of energy is a threat to the environment!

We must stop ALL use of ALL kinds of energy for ANY purpose!

IT'S FOR MOTHER EARTH! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF POOR MOTHER EARTH?

[LAK]

People upset about ocean windfarms etc are obsessed with this idea of the "pristine" wilderness.

Not that most people do not appreciate places that are seemingly untouched, "unspoiled", with no artificial objects to soil the view. The things is, we can not afford to preserve every piece of wilderness, mountains, seascape etc to the extent that it is devoid of any human habitation or use whatsoever.

I took a flight over the Alaska pipeline once, over the Yukon and to the arctic circle. From a modest altitude, when flying over the pipeline, if you blinked a few times you could have missed it. It is like a cotton sewing thread line through a Wally parking lot.

It's only an "eyesore" if you are close enough to actually see it, and I doubt that any spills, or other "pollution" associated with it's construction and operation are going to affect the "fragile tundra" a dozen yards either side of it.

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

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Tallpine]

The Alaskan pipeline was supposed to kill off all the caribou, because they would be afraid to cross under the elevated pipe and thus could not follow their annual migration routes.

Later, I heard that the caribou were happily standing in the shade of the pipeline, and rubbing the velvet off their antlers on the supports 

[cordex]

Go down to the ocean with an eyedropper. Take some water out of the ocean.

There. That's about how much windfarms and all other things would "affect" the planet.

The planet is REALLY FREAKING HUGE. Go out on a boat during the sort of storm where the waves are above you. You'll realize how big it is, and how very very small you are.

While more or less accurate, I would characterize this as taking a dropper of water off of the planet for every person on the earth multiple times a day.  Then you ask yourself, "At what point does this make a detrimental impact?"  Eventually it will.  The question, however, is it far enough away that we really don't have to worry about it?

If I did my math right ... assuming every one of the approximately 106,456,367,669 people who have ever lived on the plant took out one ounce of water every day of their life, and every person lived until they were 80 years old, we would be missing approximately 24,285,358,900,000 gallons.

That's a lot of water.  That's approximately a cube of water 22 miles on a side.

And still, it's only about .000000074494966% of the 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water on the planet.  Put another way, if you found a large Olympic-sized swimming pool and removed a similar percentage, it would be less than one cup of water.  Remember, that's for all time.

This is a big planet.

Sources:
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question157.htm
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JeffreyGilbert.shtml

[K Frame]

The Alaskan pipeline was supposed to kill off all the caribou, because they would be afraid to cross under the elevated pipe and thus could not follow their annual migration routes.

Later, I heard that the caribou were happily standing in the shade of the pipeline, and rubbing the velvet off their antlers on the supports 

LIES! Those aren't caribou, those are karabue, a genetically modified species that was introduced into the wilderness via a secret pact between the Area 51 Aliens and the Reagan administration!

EVIL GENETIC MODIFICATION!

[Tallpine]

Those aren't caribou, those are karabue, a genetically modified species that was introduced into the wilderness via a secret pact between the Area 51 Aliens and the Reagan administration!

So is it okay now to just shoot them?

Mmmm, genetically modified karabue - it's what's for dinner