Oil is causing and has caused lots of big problems, war, conflicts, spills, cancer (kerosine, fine dust, dioxine, plastics) global warming, and the second biggest problem, oil is the fundamental energy of a growing word empire, now growing for almost a century. Nuclear power has caused (conflicts, iron curtain, mass demonstrations) and has caused lots of big and two very big problems, the nuclear accidents, and now causing again a political problem, Iran (only Iran, not the other nuclear powers, because Iran is near the Middle East) There are two big energy sources that can take away most of these problems and political conflicts, inexhaustable geothermical energy (is available world wide), and the second big energy (that the Moon gravity is causing) is tidal energy (countries fight the tides for centuries, the tides have caused disaster, this shows how powerful tide energy are, precious green and clean energy is just waiting to be harvest, but is boycotted and censored in the media) These two big energies are never mentioned, not even by the green parties and enviromental organisations (only because the power of this global system is based on oil, and this shows that the green parties and organisations are all part of this system) You will never hear the media (MSM and so called new media, Infowars/RT and such) ever mention or talk about these alternative energies.
Tidal energy is only practical in certain areas--those with high tidal flow. It has very negative effects to tidal ecosystems. Geothermal only practical where you have magma close to the surface.
Because no one is building the more advanced reactors that are passively safe. Where if the cooling systems fail, the reactor also loses fuel and shuts down. It's not available worldwide (it's only usable in areas where the crust is unusually thin), has been known to cause earthquakes, and the long-term impact of draining away the Earth's heat is totally unknown. Cooling the Earth by "using" geothermal energy might have very bad results. Tidal energy hasn't been ignored. It's discussed quite a bit, and there are many large projects ongoing.
I am interested, how much of an effect would the cooling of the earth have? Would you happen to has some articles on the subject? I had read the it can cause earthquakes, however it was a somewhat brief mention in Scientific American.
I learned about tidal and geothermal energy, and wrote a term paper about them, in an environmental earth science class in college, in 1973. They've been known about for a long time. Main problem with them is they are very localized. Only usable where there is coastline with large tides (like in Nova Scotia), and even then, the tides are only moving for part of the day. With (it's called geothermal, not geothermical), there are relatively few locations where the earth lends itself for this to be of use energywise.
Simple physics will tell you that drawing energy from the Earth's mantle to do industrially useful work will cool the Earth's mantle by the same amount. The effects of this are entirely unknown, and likely wouldn't be observable for a very long time. But research--even just simulation--would be helpful, because the problem might be more severe than at first imagined. It's hard to conceptualize how human productive activity today would be a significant enough drain to really harm the Earth's geological systems... but we tend to use increasingly large amounts of energy over time, and that might not be so inconceivable in fifty or a hundred years if we really pushed hard for geothermal power. It's sort of like how no one really considers the environmental impact of capturing the energy of sunlight hitting the "open, useless" desert. But in fact it must have an impact on the environment, certainly in that location and probably more broadly. It decreases the total amount of energy available to the Earth's climatic systems, and that will surely have some impact. How much that would be, and whether that would be worse than the effect of greenhouse gasses, hasn't really been studied much. It's another one of those indirect consequences that is difficult to conceptualize now because solar energy is such a small portion of our total generative capacity... but if we really made a big push to solar power, those large solar farms might well have a substantial negative impact on the environment in their own right. I don't personally think that this would be worse than the consequences of burning fossil fuels, but I also can't really be sure about that because there isn't a whole lot of research into these difficult problems. Asking someone to explain why this is a problem would be similar to asking people to explain why fossil fuels would be a bad idea in the 1920s. They didn't really know enough about it to make a meaningful study of the long-term indirect impacts of the use of fossil fuels. These are long-term concerns to raise about these supposedly harmless technologies. The fact of the matter is that any time you draw power from a natural system, you reduce the energy available for that system to perform its function. That will have an impact on that system. The severity of that impact on human life is largely unknown for these renewable technologies. I am suggesting that before we go about reforming our energy systems, perhaps we ought to put some serious effort into projecting the long-term consequences of known indirect effects of these technologies. Maybe solar is a better path than geothermal. Maybe nuclear is a better option than either, and should be used until uranium is used up. All I'm saying is that the current generative capacity was built before we really analyzed those consequences and that's come back to bite us in the ass today.
Well, tidal energy is a bit more widely applicable than just areas with incredibly rough tides; just putting a turbine in ocean currents lets you tap some of that power. Whether this is a solution to every problem or not, and whether it has a worse impact than the sources it replaces... well, that is somewhat up for debate.
There's a bit of research going into the Earth's Magnetic Field for the production of energy. I don't think that the magnetic field could supply any power grids, but it appears that on a 'personal use' level, there has been some success. RE: generating 3-7 amps by use of some coil. Enough to run some power tools, electric light bulbs, even an electric car. Who knows?
Yes, tidal can be done with coastlines of average tides too, but then the question becomes how economical is it ? Communities would have to weigh the expense of building a power plant and maintaining it, versus the $$ benefit. It's the old bang for your buck situation. I think tidal power's environmental impact is generally minimal, especially compared to fossil fuels or nuclear.
Without a doubt it will cause localized problems. Part of the reason that estuaries are such fertile zones is because of the energy provided to the ecosystem through the tidal currents. Any reduction of those currents will change the ecosystem. The only tide plants that are operational are in areas with extremely high tidal flow.
Any energy source is going to be the focus of those who wish to gain ultimate power as long as it is centralized. Oil is not the main cause of war but is a potent influence on how wars have been fought, won or lost. It is not proven that oil is causing GW. Any product we manufacture has the potential to cause local pollution. Fiberglass and asbestos are good examples that are not directly created from petroleum. Any valuable element can cause conflict. Diamonds and gold come to mind. Neither are viable otherwise private corporations would already be building such power generation plants. Basically the profit margin is too thin. Oil is relatively cheap, easy to store and distribute. Countless movies have depicted a nuclear-caused Armageddon. Nuclear is never mentioned in the MSM in a good light because the media 'template' is that nuclear plants are 'bad.' There is a lot of ignorance about radiation...i.e. how much can a human safely absorb? After all we absorb radiation every day. Spent coal is more radioactive than any nuclear waste product for instance. If you live under the 'stack-shadow' of a coal-electric generation plant your radiation levels will be above the norm.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that is it better than the environmental impact of nuclear power. You need a whole lot of turbines stealing power from currents and waves to replace one relatively compact nuclear power plant.
... Fiberglass is actually made from petroleum. It's a mixture of fiber-reinforced plastic and glass. And yes, it's pretty conclusive that burning fossil fuels of any kind contributes to "global warming" by increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Diamonds are only valuable because they're controlled by a cartel; they're not particularly rare in nature. "Blood diamonds" occur because these commonly available gems can be sold by brutal revolutionary forces at exaggerated prices on a market hungry for diamonds because of artificial manipulation by that cartel. No one invests in electric utilities without government backing. Electric utilities are heavily manipulated by governments. The free market utterly fails at providing electrical service without government intervention. The US has opted not to pursue nuclear power--because it is quite expensive, but also because the public has a negative perception of it. Sure. Though private nuclear power plants aren't exactly the most conservative when it comes to dosage limits either. They're way more liberal with their acceptable limits than DOE, for example.
I'm not so sure you can say that the free market "fails" at it, because we've never really given the free market a chance. The reason no one invests in it is because it is so widely expected that the government will provide the service. Both because the government wants to have control over the power grid, and also because so many people call it a "natural monopoly." It probably also has something to do with the difficulty of acquiring property easements to build your distribution infrastructure. But this is not necessarily true. For the free market to provide electricity (assuming that the government secures property rights), each power company would build their own power grid and go from there. And this may be a higher initial cost, but having the extra redundancy would be good, imo, especially for something so basic as the electrical grid. If you're talking about the Enron episode, though, that was not the free market. That was monopoly. If Enron had competitors, they would have come in and sold their electricity when Enron turned theirs off. Enron would have lost customers in the long-run, and their strategy would have failed.
Because they weren't bothering to do it! The government did nothing, and the utilities made a few power plants in some profitable markets and that's it. So, reacting to demands from the people for power, they started pushing rural electrification and electrical development generally. The free market had the chance, did nothing with it, and demonstrated very clearly the need for public utilities. Electric utilities are a classic example of market failure at work. Because it is a natural monopoly, just not a very profitable one. It's too easy for communities to get together to compete through cooperatives. Electric power is best provided as a public utility; preferably one organized as a cooperative. Yes, and the public's complete unwillingness to put up with every different company putting up its own power lines, especially if those lines used different standards. How do you even compete to provide electrical service? Either the distribution network is publicly held, or you have to run parallel lines for every provider for an area. It makes no sense. It's nonsensical. You'd have to get new lines built every time you wanted to change providers. God help you if you wanted power at a new housing development. No country manages its electrical grid this way because it's a pretty dumb idea. It's way easier and more sensible to just hold he distribution network publicly, and charge producers for the use of the lines. No, I'm not talking about that, though I suppose it is related. The free market can't adequately handle the provision of electrical service mainly because of the physical properties of the product and the capital intensive infrastructure development required to deliver it. There is absolutely no reason for competitors to develop into an area already served by another company; all it would do is spark a price war and both sides would just end up selling for razor thin margins. They would understand that up front and wouldn't bother. They'd just care up little fiefdoms and sell power at inflated rates, with each provider understanding the futility of opening the competitive flood gates. Hence why electric utilities are best organized as cooperatives, where the users are also the owners. They have an incentive to run the organization efficiently, and provide good service at reasonable prices.
Yes, environmental zealots don't realize that the EPA not only costs everyone more $$$ but it also severely limits competition and encourages a business-government connection as companies vie for 'exceptions' in draconian legislation.
Au contraire . . . The power distribution markets were at first dominated by small, localized systems. This was the result not of any market forces, but a constraint of the technology itself. DC power was used at first, and the voltage of DC power cannot be changed easily. Therefore, entirely separate power grids had to be built for lighting, motors, and other things that operate at different voltages. None of these voltages could be stepped-up to the higher transmission voltages, which is the only way to avoid very significant transmission losses. Hence, none of them were very large in terms of area. As the new AC technology developed, however, long-distance transmission became possible, and these electrical companies did indeed begin to expand service into regional endeavors. The expansion of electrical service was well on its way, but dominated by local monopolies. This caused the government to become interested, and they eventually took significant control of the industry. Private companies indeed were expanding service, but the government took over. That was one approach. A different approach would be to mandate that anyone with a distribution network would have to share their property easements. This would open up an opportunity for competitors to come in and build parallel systems. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't be involved, all I'm saying is, don't automatically call this a market failure just because the government took charge and pushed private entrepreneurs out of the industry. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html
Libertarians don't realize that EPA regulations save 30 times more than they cost, and prevent unauthorized and uncompensated trespass on millions of landowners to boot.
Oregon gonna ride the wave of the future... Oregon poised for wave energy Sept. 7, 2012 - The United States' first commercially licensed grid-connected wave energy device is in its final stage of testing before its launch next month in Oregon.
Tidal power potential better than wind in UK... UK tidal power has huge potential, say scientists 13 January 2013 - The UK is underestimating the amount of electricity that could be generated from tidal sources, new research says.
`Bout time we got around to tidal power... Obama Administration Tapping the Ocean As An Energy Source August 30, 2013 -- The U.S. Energy Department is spending $16 million in an attempt to harness energy from ocean waves and tides.
Saying nuclear power is responsible for nuclear weapons, or weapons proliferation, is like saying you shouldn't drive a gasoline automobile because of the firebombing of Dresden. Because both are fire, right? Regarding nuclear accidents, nobody died because of Fukushima and nobody every will. Same for Three Mile Island. About sixty-five people died because of Chernobyl, fifty from the radiation release. Compare that to any other power source and nuclear still comes out as the safest form of power ever invented. There's a reason for that. Tidal power is extremely expensive. Geothermal can be cheap, but only if it's available at shallow depths, and that only occurs at a few places on earth. To get geothermal power in, say, Pennsylvania, you have to drill very deep, and that makes it very expensive.
biggest one ignored is water..hydro electric solves more than just energy problems..geothermal only is good in certain places
