Mount St. Helens Glacier

crashsite said:

A big concern of environmentalists is the effect on the plants and animals and other organisms that occur when we try to do anything. But, couldn't an argument be made that there's not much organic stuff going on underneath a glacier or ice cap anyway and if the area lost by warming is immediately covered with a whilte plastic, do you really just fool the earth into thinking that the ice still exists (at least from a sunlight reflective standpoint)?

Again, we get back to the cooling by shading vs cooling by reflecting concepts.

Click to expand...

A "tarp" cools via both, not sure how a tarp placed over an object could only cool by one or the other (wouldn't make much sense having a "tarp" that was not white/silver)? To reduce heat from the sun hitting the earth it must be blocked, by blocking it, it will reflect the light and leave a subsequent shadow behind it.

Coating the earth with plastic is absurd...we had enough problems with the plastic that held 6 packs of cans together, now imagine 100's of sq miles of plastic sheet? Putting white plastic over a white glacier makes no sense except to deliberately pollute the earth, doing it over land will kill any vegetation and disrupt any existing wildlife. All for what? To hope that it reflects the light away from the glaciers or from warming up the soil? Haha.

I believe in reducing my carbon footprint; however I don't believe all the people preaching about global warming. If Al Gore thought it was attributed by the human race, why is he flying around on a private jet from presentation to presentation? Shouldn't it be smarter to go with a public transport, such as bus or even an airplane that will hold more than a dozen people? There are a lot of people that are trying to cash in on the "global warming" ploy. I for one have CF light fixtures, run my furnace and AC as minimal as possible and ride a bike where I can, I don't believe salesmen only engineers/scientists with proven facts.

You can't use a cover, as any ice that would have been deposited on the glacier, would be on the 'cover', the weight would eventually destroy it anyway. The more we alter nature, the greater the consequences...

I wonder if anyone has ever research just how 'Green' our Eco-leaders are, do the actual live and believe what they are selling? Don't remember reading any of them opening up their home and showing off the solar panels, the EV cars, and so forth. We do hear about the mansions, planes, boats, helicopters, all the big-boy toys. Some seem to favor the SUVs and Hummers, but these could be conversions, right?

Should at least be "tried"

Conrad_Turbo said:

Coating the earth with plastic is absurd...we had enough problems with the plastic that held 6 packs of cans together, now imagine 100's of sq miles of plastic sheet?

Click to expand...

Putting a huge tarp over the surface of the earth is an absurd "solution". That's not to say that it shouldn't be tried, on a modest scale, in order to learn just exactly what the effects and problems are so they can be integrated into better solutions. But, even as a test, the size would have to be large enough to be significant.

Regarding the 6 pack plastic. The problem with that plastic is not so much the plastic polution as that it's a form that easily gets tangled up in animal food sources and can injure and kill wildlife.

We have the means...just not the guidance

Regarding electric and hybrid cars. Some of the very first cars ever sold were electrics (and, that's with turn-of-the-century batteries, motors and controllers...that's the 20th century!).

The fact is, done right, the electric car is very doable and practical. The hybrid even more so. Of course, part of "doing it right" entails us thinking right as well. For us to work with the technology. To plan our activities such that the electric can charge for a couple of days on solar panels rather than hopping in and driving whenever the whim strikes (as we tend to do with our cars). For gas stations to have battery changeout facilites that can change a battery pack in no more time than to fill a gas tank (ie: develop standard size and connector configurations...sort of like the AA and C and D batteries have always fit because somebody did it right in the first place).

There is just so much we could do within the current state of technology and without having to even do a major change in thinking. But, there's some modifications that obviously need to be done.

crashsite said:

Putting a huge tarp over the surface of the earth is an absurd "solution". That's not to say that it shouldn't be tried, on a modest scale, in order to learn just exactly what the effects and problems are so they can be integrated into better solutions. But, even as a test, the size would have to be large enough to be significant.

Regarding the 6 pack plastic. The problem with that plastic is not so much the plastic polution as that it's a form that easily gets tangled up in animal food sources and can injure and kill wildlife.

Click to expand...

You don't think an animal treading onto a plastic sheet will fair much better? Especially if their food source is underneath the plastic?

I think the tarp over the surface of the earth would never happen...if any reflecting or shading from the sun was ever to happen it'd happen from space.

In the future energy will be recovered via geothermal, hydro (ocean), solar (near the equator or high sun areas), wind (high wind areas..obviously) and supplimented via nuclear. Geothermal will be huge however...

crashsite said:

Regarding electric and hybrid cars. Some of the very first cars ever sold were electrics (and, that's with turn-of-the-century batteries, motors and controllers...that's the 20th century!).

The fact is, done right, the electric car is very doable and practical. The hybrid even more so. Of course, part of "doing it right" entails us thinking right as well. For us to work with the technology. To plan our activities such that the electric can charge for a couple of days on solar panels rather than hopping in and driving whenever the whim strikes (as we tend to do with our cars). For gas stations to have battery changeout facilites that can change a battery pack in no more time than to fill a gas tank (ie: develop standard size and connector configurations...sort of like the AA and C and D batteries have always fit because somebody did it right in the first place).

There is just so much we could do within the current state of technology and without having to even do a major change in thinking. But, there's some modifications that obviously need to be done.

Click to expand...

Where is that electricity coming from? A coal powered plant? Electricity isn't as clean as you would think. Batteries are not so nice to dispose of as well.

More, "Right Thinking"

Conrad_Turbo said:

Where is that electricity coming from? A coal powered plant? Electricity isn't as clean as you would think. Batteries are not so nice to dispose of as well.

Click to expand...

Electricity can be "free". After initial cost and the inevitable maintenance, of course. But, it's not good for electric vehicles as a direct source. But, as I've stated, it can be stored up and that makes it practical. Well, practical if we are in the right thinking mode, anyway.

The "battery pollution" factor can largely be overcome with the battery changeout stations. It's sort of like the bottled gas thing. When you buy a bottle of O2 or CO2 or helium or argon, it comes in a bottle that's required, by law, to be in current test. Failed bottles are scrapped. Likewise, the changeout station would always do a test on an incoming battery pack and, if it fails, send it in for recycling...all transparent to the motorist.

The thing about chemistry is that all you can lose is a miniscule amount of energy in a conversion. 100% of the original elements must be accounted for. Then, the question is...is it worth expending the energy needed to put it back the way it was to do so. In battery recycling it is and batteries are commonly recycled all the time.

Of course, some people will figure out that you can "cheat the system" by keeping the same pack and charging at home...and, when problems occur, take the battery to the changeout station for a "new" one. But, to do that means that they will have either paid for the electricity or did the solar thing and so everybody still comes out ahead.

Commercial charging stations could also justify the initial cost of solar cells if it makes financial sense in the long run where there are a number of factors that prevent individuals from doing it: Makes the house look ugly. I'm already in credit card debt and can't afford the cells (and the entertainment center and boat and RV and trip to Hawaii). I heard you have to wash them every day. Solar is technology and therefore, "icky" and not for me. My cousin, Cletus told me about a guy his brother's cousin's nephew knew that got burned by a dishonest solar salesman and I'll do nothing rather than risk getting cheated, myself. And, so on...and on...and on.

Sorry for being so long-winded here but, speaking of wind power....

hehe

Speaking of Wind Power...

What do you think of that Billionaire oil tycoon that wants to build the ultimate wind powered electrical system?

I at least like his tag line. "I'm 80 years old and I have billions of dollars. I don't need the money".

Sounds like a lot of hot air powered by money.

A Better Legacy than Honda's?

Sceadwian said:

Sounds like a lot of hot air powered by money.

Click to expand...

I don't know. it sounds to me like a rich guy that decided that he wants to leave a legacy. And, what better legacy for a Texas oil tycoon than trying to build a system that will help wean us off oil?

A better legacy, I think, than Leona Helmsley leaving her billions to the dogs. Although that has obviously left her with a legacy, too. However, I think that, in the eyes of most, it's the legacy of being a bitter, whacko-bananas joke.

As I understand it, the problem is not with the wind or the windmills. It's that the various power grids were designed for single-point power generation and were then hodge-podged together into a system (giving the domino effect in the infamous blackout in the US northeast a few decades ago). It kind of makes sense to create a new power grid with multi-point generation as its basic design.

But, that will take more than the piddly four billion T. Boone Pickens has.

crashsite said:

I don't know. it sounds to me like a rich guy that decided that he wants to leave a legacy. And, what better legacy for a Texas oil tycoon than trying to build a system that will help wean us off oil?

A better legacy, I think, than Leona Helmsley leaving her billions to the dogs. Although that has obviously left her with a legacy, too. However, I think that, in the eyes of most, it's the legacy of being a bitter, whacko-bananas joke.

As I understand it, the problem is not with the wind or the windmills. It's that the various power grids were designed for single-point power generation and were then hodge-podged together into a system (giving the domino effect in the infamous blackout in the US northeast a few decades ago). It kind of makes sense to create a new power grid with multi-point generation as its basic design.

But, that will take more than the piddly four billion T. Boone Pickens has.

Click to expand...

Building power grids of our own. Hmmm I had a little of an absurd conversation in another thread about Humans in some sort of (Matrix)

But not so absurd most of the cost in maintaining solar is purchasing and maintaining expensive Batteries. The panels are almost Cost effective. Sure your going to need something to convert voltage to a/c if not AC already. But,what if we just made the energy and dumped it into the Grid thereby fulfilling energy demand during peak months. Done without expensive Storage and maintenance.

$$$$$$ will return to us by inputing a certain amount of energy produced maybe by solar or wind Ect. Building houses & lots in the beginning with this in mind reduces cost of Power Company's Ever increasing demand. Lowering wattage Coming out of generating Plants would be divided by the Consumer ? Not to mention the recent discovery of recyclable batteries.

On the average a power grid with distributed generation will have a much shorter distance between the producer and the consumer. The lines required to make it work should be smaller?

Batteries

killivolt said:

Building power grids of our own. Hmmm I had a little of an absurd conversation in another thread about Humans in some sort of (Matrix).

Click to expand...

Wasn't that a movie? The Matrix.

killivolt said:

But not so absurd most of the cost in maintaining solar is purchasing and maintaining expensive Batteries.

Click to expand...

Solar systems often use batteries because they are not connected to the grid (ie: RV'ers and folks living in the outback...and, of course, electric vehicles). For systems that are connected to commercial power, I think the extra energy just goes into the meter backwards and lowers the power bill.

The power companies don't use storage devices at all and rely on a fairly even usage around the clock. By taking advantage of varying rates for time of use, industry has automatically ensured this.

I don't think it's still the case but, I remember a film from back in grade school about hydroelectric power and, in their case, they actually adjusted water flow to slow down and speed up the turbines during the daily cycle (so all electric clocks, with their synchronous motors, would vary by a couple of minutes each day).

Wire Guage

3v0 said:

On the average a power grid with distributed generation will have a much shorter distance between the producer and the consumer. The lines required to make it work should be smaller?

Click to expand...

One would think there is likely to be some of those trade-offs. Certainly, the overall grid would be more complex but, with the power being generated closer it makes sense that lines would be smaller (or kept the same and have even more efficient power transfer).

In any case, I for one, am kind of excited about the notion of someone at least attempting to do this project. There's surely no shortage of energy being expended on planet earth that's (I wont say, "it's going to waste" but, it's also not being collected and used effectively).

It kind of makes sense to create a new power grid with multi-point generation as its basic design.

Click to expand...

Any idea how this would work?

It kind of makes sense to create a new power grid with multi-point generation as its basic design.

Click to expand...

The utility companies in the US by law buy power from their customers. I think if you match the frequency and phase of the line you can add power to the system. This works well for relatively local consumption. of generated power.

In the case of large wind farms you need new infrastructure.

Added power, matched in frequency and phase, works well for local consumption. I think this will only result in reduction of the power sucked from the grid, and with little risk of system upset.

A wind farm needs to be managed like any large energy plant. Frequency and phase should already be centrally timed from GPS.

Phasing

mneary said:

Added power, matched in frequency and phase, works well for local consumption. I think this will only result in reduction of the power sucked from the grid, and with little risk of system upset.

Click to expand...

Considering that local households and major power grids can switch and share power tells me that just about any configuration should be doable and practical.

mneary said:

A wind farm needs to be managed like any large energy plant. Frequency and phase should already be centrally timed from GPS.

Click to expand...

All you really need is a sample of the line frequency and voltage. Any time you have an interface where you can physically switch between two grids, you'll have that info for both systems. A simple phase and voltage monitor would be sufficient to minimize switching transients.

Frankly, I don't really know how two or more power grids maintain phase while sharing power. Perhaps someone here does. But, my best guress would be that one system is designated as the master and all the other grids lock to it all the time so the switching could be done quickly.

Considering that 60 Hz (or 50 Hz) is a very long wavelength (about 3000 to 4000 miles in free space...dunno what it is in transmission wires), just knowing the physical location of the switch and amount of wire to get there, it should be pretty easy to know the phase to within a small fraction of a degree at each switch point.

mneary said:

Added power, matched in frequency and phase, works well for local consumption. I think this will only result in reduction of the power sucked from the grid, and with little risk of system upset.

Click to expand...

A transformer can be power from either end. Excess power should feed back through the substation to the lines that normally power it.

HarveyH42 said:

Global Warming is crap. Mankind had little or nothing to do with the natural warming trend. It's a huge planet, and mankind is only tiny specks on the surface of the land masses (less then 1/3 coverage). We didn't start it, we can't stop it, and it's foolish to believe we could have even the tiniest effect in slowing it down. The whole movement is profit based, ditch all your old wasteful conveniences, and buy all new, greener, planet friendly ones. The bulk of the old stuff goes to landfills, or burn piles (real friendly), and the energy demand soars beyond belief, to manufacture all the new green things. Who knows, it'll be crap for us, and the next couple of generations, but maybe a couple of hundred years later things might be a little nicer...

The planet will warm up, probably no where near as bad as Al Gore believes, and it will cool down for a while (oh no, a new panic to profit on). Mankind has survived, because we adapt to the environment, build shelters from the elements, clothing, make tools. A few million people might died a couple years quicker, but no drastic change in the population.

The climate has changed many times, and we survived and thrived, it's just a new challenge.

We do need to make better use of the resources we take, and cut back on the waste and pollution. This is where we can make our planet a nicer place to live. Nature will continue to hand us enough problem to deal with.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you have a well paid job and fear giving up your large car and wasting time recycling. for years we have dreamed of controlling the weather and now that we inadvertenly are we won't admit it. its not just a case of the earth getting warmer climate is no longer constant with unexpected lack of or abundance of rain at the wrong times for crops to grow. I got english runner beans to adapt to the climate of southern Italy over the course of 7 years but when the weather started actually going scatty even local crops stopped carry out their natural cycle they grew at the wrong times flowered at the wrong times and gave produce for a very limited amount of time or not at all its not just about being a little hotter it will be about having even less land to live on and less food to eat because it somply will not grow.