Luke, no doubt we need to find better ways to provide energy to this power hungry world. Too bad these alternatives are having their own negative impact on the environment one way or another. This would include many raptor deaths from wind farms to some questionable results of fracking and ground water problems as well as even possible earth quaking. The solar plants were suspect with this as a problem as outlined in the article, as well as the displacement of many desert dwellers such as the tortoise populations in these areas.
Lots of science behind all the alternatives, but still some problems occur as man tilts mother nature in a negative way.
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 18, 2014 at 8:48 PM
Paul - thanks for the feedback, I agree wholeheartedly. My day job is an environmental analyst for local government and we have several solar farms (50+ acres) in for review right now. One is proposed on wooded land, the other on a sod farm. As you could imagine there are a lot of people who aren't keen on the idea of cutting down trees to install solar panels, while some wonder why we should take perfectly good agricultural land (and prime soils) and cover them with solar. But if the alternative is a coal fired plant or natural gas.. well, which is the lesser evil?
Is it finally time for the salty reactors?
It looks like we dropped the ball on this one long ago. Probably shut down by big oil?
China seems to be ahead of us on this one.
At least somebody has funding
“THE WAMSR USES MOLTEN SALT TO DISSOLVE NUCLEAR FUEL. THAT ULTIMATELY REDUCES BOTH THE RADIOACTIVITY AND AMOUNT OF THE WASTE. THEIR NEW REACTOR COULD CREATE ABOUT 10-20 KG OF LONG-LIVED WASTE PER YEAR INSTEAD OF THE 20 METRIC TONS PRODUCED BY TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL PLANTS. 20 KG IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A GRAPEFRUIT.
And the remaining waste that comes out, it's waste that's radioactive for just a few hundred years, so much shorter than the hundreds of thousands of years from other plants.
AND HERE'S ANOTHER BIG PLUS. AROUND THE WORLD TODAY, THERE EXISTS ABOUT 270,000 METRIC TONS OF HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE. WAMSR COULD "EAT" THAT WASTE AND TURN IT INTO ELECTRICITY.”
Pass the salt, please.
Posted by Ronald Davis on August 19, 2014 at 7:52 AM
There's no quick fix. We're now in a mass extinction phase. Our species has overpopulated the world, and human numbers are still growing, requiring more and more land and resources. The aspirations of developing nations for wealth and comfort are justified, but at the same time we wealthy ones continue to selfishly degrade the biosphere, and only minimally share our wealth. What to do? Actively lobby our politicians, and support environmental NGO's that do the same. Additionally, each of us as individuals can reduce our negative environmental impacts including our carbon footprints. At home in Maine, my wife and I use an array of solar panels to run our geothermal heating system, appliances, and electric car for over 90 percent fossil fuel free living and transportation. This energy system has relatively little negative impact. We also grow a lot of our own vegies organically. We're comfortable but not rich by American standards, but were able to make the capital outlays for our energy system. Why aren't most middle-class Americans doing something similar, within their financial capacities and circumstances? Ignorance? Selfishness? Hopelessness? Worried about oil sands, fracking, impacts of steam-solar, wind turbines......(etc.)? If so, do something about it! Ron Davis
Why aren't most middle-class Americans doing something similar, within their financial capacities and circumstances? Ignorance?
I was amazed just a couple years back now at what I saw and heard at a Home Depot here in So Cal. I was in the electrical department getting some parts for a project I was involved with. There was a husband and wife looking at light bulbs. And yes they had stumbled into the fluorescent bulb area and were totally baffled at the costs. Secondly, they had no idea what they were looking at either. Keep in mind, these were two older adults not newly weds. I took the time to explain the reason for the costs with resulting longevity and power consumption. At this point I told them I had over time converted EVERY light fixture inside and outside our home to fluorescent and my own experience with costs, longevity, and power savings. Thankfully they were at least smart enough to understand the point and bought the updated gear.
Again, this was only a couple years ago now and these adults were just now learning about lights that have been on the market for years now. I have not needed to change out one tube since changing over and some go back at least 10 years now.
I applaud your dedication Ronald and happy to hear an update such as yours.
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM
I will say that the Town I work for has seen a tremendous spike in solar panels for single-family homes. This is largely due to the advent of solar panels being "leased" instead of purchased outright. Homeowners can put down $0, their electric bill goes to $0, and the pay about 1/2 of what they paid for electricity to the solar company for the "lease" (with the company keeping all the incentives from the government and maintaining control of the panels should you fail to pay or move or whatever.
We have a very large solar array that was put into the woods of a national laboratory (Brookhaven National Lab) which certainly caused controversy but is being used to study large-scale solar projects in the region. Windmills are few and far between - the Town has a small turbine at Town Hall, but the energy created by it does little more than power the sewage treatment plant (and it has killed at least one red-tailed hawk). Solar panels are supposedly coming to many town facilities, but I will believe it when I see it.
It's a long road we are travelling down. At my job I am doing my best to encourage that new residential developments be wired for electric vehicles (thus encouraging new residents to purchase or lease an electric car) and have been pushing for a code that deals with fuel cell technology, but have sadly gotten no-where.
I have read about solar "co-ops" in Minnesota which are really interesting. Solar arrays are built on vacant land outside of metro areas, and people who say rent an apartment, or are prevented from installing solar due to tree cover or an HOA can purchase individual "panels" and reap the benefits of the electricity generated via their electric bill. The only problem is it is likely only effective in areas where land is really cheap.
Posted by Greg Lessard on August 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM
Luke,
Solar companies in MA have started building their farms on top of retired dumps. This seems ingenious to me. It is wasteland that they are using to harvest a renewable resource. I have not yet heard about any negative impacts, but they are not using towers either. I imagine that you are already well aware of this.
Greg
From being involved with several ecological groups to date the solar panels seem to be a win-win on many fronts. Especially with no side effects so to speak. Whereas to date wind farms and solar farms with reflective mirrors seem to have a host of issues.
So, as we all move forward on these items it keeps me thinking positively in hopes that any negative impact I've done in my life time might be recovered at some point for man kind. I'm and old guy who will make it through the life cycle and have no children of my own to worry about. However, I still do share in this as a point of concern for world survival and betterment of mankind and wildlife overall. It will take EVERYONE to make things work in the end.
As a side note: I'm sure many have seen the solar panel highway thing and scoffed at it, but on a smaller scale why not parking lots and such as a good starting point and test for the future. Here is their first video as I recall and they have more now. Solar Highway
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM
Greg - our Town considered it (the dump is one of the highest points on Long Island and is an excellent landmark for mariners), but it was determined to be too unstable to support the panels... that of course inspires a lot of confidence! At least we can extract some methane from it for energy.
Paul - I can't see the link since I'm at work so I'm not sure exactly what it is. But with respect to solar in parking lots, it's very effective/efficient in some parts, but where it snows frequently it can be problematic due to the need to plow parking lots.
Luke, take a look at the link when your at home.
Speaking of home, I see your from LINY. I was born and raised until 7 years of age out there. Huntington Station, North Port and East North Port areas......
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Discussion
12 repliessolar farm burns birds in mid-air
- Luke
Lots of science behind all the alternatives, but still some problems occur as man tilts mother nature in a negative way.
It looks like we dropped the ball on this one long ago. Probably shut down by big oil?
China seems to be ahead of us on this one.
At least somebody has funding
“THE WAMSR USES MOLTEN SALT TO DISSOLVE NUCLEAR FUEL. THAT ULTIMATELY REDUCES BOTH THE RADIOACTIVITY AND AMOUNT OF THE WASTE. THEIR NEW REACTOR COULD CREATE ABOUT 10-20 KG OF LONG-LIVED WASTE PER YEAR INSTEAD OF THE 20 METRIC TONS PRODUCED BY TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL PLANTS. 20 KG IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A GRAPEFRUIT.
And the remaining waste that comes out, it's waste that's radioactive for just a few hundred years, so much shorter than the hundreds of thousands of years from other plants.
AND HERE'S ANOTHER BIG PLUS. AROUND THE WORLD TODAY, THERE EXISTS ABOUT 270,000 METRIC TONS OF HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE. WAMSR COULD "EAT" THAT WASTE AND TURN IT INTO ELECTRICITY.”
Pass the salt, please.
I was amazed just a couple years back now at what I saw and heard at a Home Depot here in So Cal. I was in the electrical department getting some parts for a project I was involved with. There was a husband and wife looking at light bulbs. And yes they had stumbled into the fluorescent bulb area and were totally baffled at the costs. Secondly, they had no idea what they were looking at either. Keep in mind, these were two older adults not newly weds. I took the time to explain the reason for the costs with resulting longevity and power consumption. At this point I told them I had over time converted EVERY light fixture inside and outside our home to fluorescent and my own experience with costs, longevity, and power savings. Thankfully they were at least smart enough to understand the point and bought the updated gear.
Again, this was only a couple years ago now and these adults were just now learning about lights that have been on the market for years now. I have not needed to change out one tube since changing over and some go back at least 10 years now.
I applaud your dedication Ronald and happy to hear an update such as yours.
We have a very large solar array that was put into the woods of a national laboratory (Brookhaven National Lab) which certainly caused controversy but is being used to study large-scale solar projects in the region. Windmills are few and far between - the Town has a small turbine at Town Hall, but the energy created by it does little more than power the sewage treatment plant (and it has killed at least one red-tailed hawk). Solar panels are supposedly coming to many town facilities, but I will believe it when I see it.
It's a long road we are travelling down. At my job I am doing my best to encourage that new residential developments be wired for electric vehicles (thus encouraging new residents to purchase or lease an electric car) and have been pushing for a code that deals with fuel cell technology, but have sadly gotten no-where.
I have read about solar "co-ops" in Minnesota which are really interesting. Solar arrays are built on vacant land outside of metro areas, and people who say rent an apartment, or are prevented from installing solar due to tree cover or an HOA can purchase individual "panels" and reap the benefits of the electricity generated via their electric bill. The only problem is it is likely only effective in areas where land is really cheap.
Solar companies in MA have started building their farms on top of retired dumps. This seems ingenious to me. It is wasteland that they are using to harvest a renewable resource. I have not yet heard about any negative impacts, but they are not using towers either. I imagine that you are already well aware of this.
Greg
So, as we all move forward on these items it keeps me thinking positively in hopes that any negative impact I've done in my life time might be recovered at some point for man kind. I'm and old guy who will make it through the life cycle and have no children of my own to worry about. However, I still do share in this as a point of concern for world survival and betterment of mankind and wildlife overall. It will take EVERYONE to make things work in the end.
As a side note: I'm sure many have seen the solar panel highway thing and scoffed at it, but on a smaller scale why not parking lots and such as a good starting point and test for the future. Here is their first video as I recall and they have more now.
Solar Highway
Paul - I can't see the link since I'm at work so I'm not sure exactly what it is. But with respect to solar in parking lots, it's very effective/efficient in some parts, but where it snows frequently it can be problematic due to the need to plow parking lots.
Speaking of home, I see your from LINY. I was born and raised until 7 years of age out there. Huntington Station, North Port and East North Port areas......
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/newser-birds-energy-solar-calif/14282915/