Green Technology

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by anaadi, Jul 21, 2015.

  1. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Hi, so I thought it would be cool to do a thread that discusses green technology, mostly inventing green technology. I think most of us can agree that the Earth is pretty much dying, and well we are the ones doing the killing, yet we are also the ones that posses the ability to save it. So in a nutshell this thread is intended to discuss ideas and stuff that encourages and corrects the destruct things we do to the Earth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Which greentech would you want to use or are using now?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Well none in particular i was thinking of making green technology. i had the idea of a barbecuing pit that removes CO2. But i think it probably an unreasonable idea since it would have used lime water to do so but even if a design can be made people would be reluctant to switch because of the constant supply of lime water required and well what would they do with the calcium carbonate. Farmers could use it for neutralizing soil acidity but really most people who owns a barbecuing pit isn't a farmer.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Since the Earth is not alive, I do not agree that it can die.
     
  8. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Hmmm, can i say mother nature is dying then.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Regardless practibility tell me how it would work. I suck as a chemist.
     
  10. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Well, the CO2 is supposed to react with the calcium hydroxide producing calcium carbonate, so that you eliminate CO2 from escaping in the air, instead you trap it creating a sink.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,201
    We're not killing Mother Nature. She'll still be here long after the human race is extinct.
    As for the barbecue pit, you'd be better off using one that doesn't produce CO2 at all, such as a solar one.
     
  12. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Am yea you are probably right
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    If you burn wood, it's pretty much carbon neutral, as long as you plant more trees to replace the ones you burned.
     
  14. anaadi Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    It makes sense in theory but people who barbeque don't plant tree after they burn wood.
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Someone might be. Also trees grow by themselves.
     
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Give me her address and I'll send her a sympathy card.

    Look, I'm not being flip here. I truly think the typical "environmentalist" views are misguided and even counterproductive on several levels -- for this one, I think it is arrogant that environmentalists believe we can "destroy the world". Humans do not possess such power.

    And even still, you should at least recognize that when different people say "green", they may mean different things. That needs to be defined before such questions can be answered/explored.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Depends on what we mean by "destroy." Obviously we cannot change Earth's orbit or blow it to pieces. But it's very likely that we can pump enough crap into the atmosphere to change the temperature sufficiently to perturb the planet's ice age cycle. Drastically raising the temperature above the normal high at the end of an ice age, or drastically lowering it below the normal low at the depth of an ice age, could very well exceed the capacity of the biosphere to adapt to the high or low. A vast fraction of the surface would be too hot, or too cold, to support the plants and animals that comprise the ecosystem. Life will surely survive, but perhaps not enough of it, with enough nutrients to feed us. Humanity could be reduced to a few thousand huddled in a gigantic shelter with hydroponic algae, feeding animals from the more primitive kingdoms, providing just enough protein and other nutrients to support these people.
    Since the 1970s, when ecology began trickling down from academia, "green" has meant "advocating protection of the environment." Since plant tissue is the bottom link in the food chain (converting the energy of electromagnetic radiation into chemical energy, which animals can use to power our growth and metabolism), the color of plant life has been universal shorthand for, as it were:

    Keeping the plants healthy so those of us at the very top link of the food chain will continue to have plenty of other organisms to consume, and in the bargain, trying very hard to keep the intermediate links healthy too.​
     
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Right: so when people say "destroy the world", what they often really mean, if they put some thought into it, is "destroy ourselves".
    But again, in what sense?
    1. Conserving/managing resources so humans can use them for longer?
    2. Protecting the biosphere from negative human influence?
    3. Protecting pretty things for no other reason than that people find them pretty?

    These goals can be very different and lead to very different actions that may or may not be considered "green" by different people. For example, the choice of whether to build a hydroelectric dam can be a complicated one depending on which you prefer (and even different weights of different issues in the same category).
     
  19. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    From my icon, I suspect you an guess that I understand that nuclear power is the greenest energy around. And just to clarify, yes I mean current nuclear power. Of course, the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) will be far greener still.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It's hard to imagine much novelty and invention in Green technology except for certain details dealing with efficiency or perhaps some new material that may be exploited. One of the most appealing to me is geothermal energy. Suppose for example that perhaps some fraction of the world's continental or shallow water calderas were put to work powering steam turbines. Iceland has made inroads here, although some of it is controversial (powering an aluminum plant which pollutes) but I like the idea that the citizens can have a virtually unlimited supply of free steam, esp. important during winter.

    At some point it may become economically advantageous to exploit the smaller difference in geothermal potential (as compared to ambient) such as the average homeowner would do if it were feasible. I notice mention that Univ of Illinois can spend up to $100M per annum on energy. With the technology and motivation best represented on university campuses, we may see some of the protypes they are erecting prosper, and others fail. So it remains to be seen how this will pan out, but I do hope to see progress there, with some incentive to encourage wider exploitation of common geothermal potential differences where the overall system benefit to cost ratio becomes a subject of common discussion (should that day arrive). Some future generation, better trained in thermodynamics and economics, may actually succeed at this.

    As a strawman, I would propose that cities of a certain size could allocate geothermal wells of sufficient size to serve neighborhoods of say 100 homes or so. The idea here is that there is economy of scale in this, plus it becomes a facility made available to the public with little or no involvement in the details by homeowners -- for those who aren't interested or can't understand it. A proportionate number of wells could be allocated for commercial buildings.

    Another accomplishment that would change the energy landscape dramatically is a battery that is much cheaper than Li-ion with, say 10, times the energy density. Here the possibility of widespread success of EVs becomes feasible. Perhaps with this we need some new breakthrough in mass production of electricity, and/or a distributed system that is so energetic that we might be willing to overlook the economy of scale of transporting electricity on the existing grid. Suppose, for example, that a breakthrough is made in photocell production which increases the efficiency to, say, 90%. Or suppose some device which resembles a themocouple were invented which achieved arpound 90% conversion efficiency. With this it may become feasible for individuals and entities to erect their own generating stations at a perceptible economic gain.

    This is all blue-sky, but you never know. Tomorrow we may wake up to some unforeseen breakthrough which will alter the future course of events for the better. In the mean time, some parts of the world where renewable generating stations are now operational will hopefully see benefits and the overall impetus to reduce fossil fuel consumption may eventually succeed, showing dramatic reversals in emissions of greenhouse gases.
     
  21. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    My black humor is always delighted to see that civilization is also going to die because of an energy crisis while we literally sit on heat generator that is emitting about 5000° C in its epicenter capturable easily and with very little risk at less than 2000 meters from the surface...
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2015
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,679
    1) Civilization is not going to die
    2) A pascal is a unit of pressure, not of energy or power.
     
  23. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Typo corrected, can you correct yours ? : "Civilization is not going to die"
     

Share This Page