Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #1
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,649
Can you build a "green" house in the Adirondacks?

By this I mean a year round residence which is not reliant on the grid, fossil fuel generators or burners?

I've looked at it many times and I don't think so, not even using the most sophisticated insulation/geothermal systems.

It also calls the question as to whether wood is "green". You can do it with wood (and a lot of concessions), but at some point, if enough people rely on wood for a large amount of energy, it's not sustainable. It's only a sustainable resource when you use a very little of it each year - I don't know the number, but trees take a long time to grow. I'm sure the internet could give you an acreage estimate per home size, but I'd guess that it depends a lot on the individual property.

I think even in warmer climates where the sun shines more this is a real stretch using everything you can throw at it. Cooking heat, hot water, and drying clothes are big heavy hitters that take a lot of energy and not something we are going to readily, sustainable go back to using wood for.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:39 PM   #2
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,947
You might be able to, if you have exactly the right location.

You need a south facing location with deep soil, and an all-year running stream. Such locations are hard to find!

Then you can berm in a partially underground house, get some geothermal, get whatever little bit of solar we can get around here, and get electricity from a tiny hydro plant.

It's tough to find a property with those features. (I live on a north facing hillside with no stream, so I am reliant on the grid.)
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:36 PM   #3
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,649
I didn't think of Hydro! That seems like it might be a real nightmare to keep running all year round.

For sure I had already exhausted all the thoughts of an "earthship" type house with geothermal. That gives you a base, but I don't think it's going to be enough when it's 30 below and you've had a week of storms blocking the sun.

*sigh* This is why I keep think we're missing the big picture - we need to change the grid power or it's all for naught.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:20 PM   #4
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,947
"...we need to change the grid power or it's all for naught."

Yes.

Now: Fracking Natural Gas. (Next 100 years.)

Next: Thorium Nuclear. (Next 1000 years.)

Eventually: Solar Photovoltaic (Once a physics breakthrough makes it actually practical.)

This is easy, and you don't have to have a PhD to see it. But it's obscured right now by politics.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:29 PM   #5
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,649
I don't know that Thorium Nuclear is viable. Some people seem to think so, but seem like crackpots.

I think waste (unenriched) Uranium Nuclear is our only near term option. Natural Gas might be viable if we crack it and sequester the carbon, then use the Hydrogen Ions to run fuel cells. This is rarely mentioned although I know it can be done. Perhaps the efficiency (net) is very poor.

The unenriched Uranium is viable... right now and we can burn all the waste fuel from old reactors.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:32 PM   #6
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,649
I think the only "green" solar is using algae. Or perhaps truly harnessing chloroplasts. Photosynthesis solves a lot of our current problems. Getting it to produce the amount of energy we want is never going to happen, but perhaps it can be a good supplement to nuclear.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:24 PM   #7
Bunchberry
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 52
https://www.wildcenter.org/belong/bu...r-adirondacks/


https://www.wildcenter.org/our-work/net-zero/
Bunchberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:12 PM   #8
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I don't know that Thorium Nuclear is viable. Some people seem to think so, but seem like crackpots.
That's only because they are depicted as crackpots by the powers that be, that support the status quo.

The Thorium cycle was demonstrated successfully in the 1940s by the US Government. It was only abandoned because the Thorium cycle did not produce enriched nuclear bomb material, like the Uranium cycle did.

Thorium is totally feasible. Bomb makers were the opponents of Thorium in the 1950s. Today, Greens (who want all energy systems to fail) are the opponents.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:39 PM   #9
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,649
Promising, but not exactly what I was asking. Net zero they said they only on average can be carbon neutral, so they need to use grid power from fossil fuels during the winter.

Again if you add wood to the equation, it can work without that grid power during the winter.

So also the rub is all the construction, import, making of Si is heavily fossil fuel dependent. Ideally we'd like to offset that but unfortunately no renewable plants are enough for industry.

Also we'd want to consider home charging of vehicles and lawn tools for future load if we go that direction. Again it's getting harder and harder to meet the total energy requirement per capita.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
That's only because they are depicted as crackpots by the powers that be, that support the status quo.

The Thorium cycle was demonstrated successfully in the 1940s by the US Government. It was only abandoned because the Thorium cycle did not produce enriched nuclear bomb material, like the Uranium cycle did.

Thorium is totally feasible. Bomb makers were the opponents of Thorium in the 1950s. Today, Greens (who want all energy systems to fail) are the opponents.
No I mean the people I've seen promoting the Thorium cycle are promoting themselves, not being shown through some media lens. I'm not remembering a lot but I seem to recall these individuals acknowledging it isn't feasible right now, and that it needs a lot more development to work on an industrial power delivery scale. It was worked on by some pretty smart nuclear scientists up until the 1960s when it was abandoned for a number of reasons. Foremost I think the Uranium reactors of that time were thought to be superior and the focus of research. But we've come so far with Uranium design in terms of safety and using fuel that is waste from old reactors - yes! And the fuel can be used until it is safe. No more handling issues. We should be using up that old fuel just to get something out of it other than the environmental mess it is.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:30 AM   #10
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,947
You are right that the Thorium cycle is way behind the Uranium cycle in technological development. Thorium was abandoned by the US Government during the cold war because it could not be used to make bombs, and making bombs was the highest priority at that time. So it has been lying fallow for decades, while the Uranium cycle has gone through many generations of technological improvement.

But:

>The value of a nuclear cycle that does not make bombs should not be overlooked, especially in the international setting. Look at the problems we face with various nations that insist they are developing their nuclear industry for energy supply, and then we find out that all along the purpose was to make bombs.

>Today's engineers and scientists could "catch up" the Thorium cycle in 3-5 years of hard work. After all, the Manhattan Project brought the Uranium bomb cycle from zero to operational in that amount of time, with primitive engineering tools.

>Thorium would certainly be online before fusion, where the running joke is "every 20 years, it's 20 years farther away." And yet we are pouring billions into fusion.

>The US has the world's largest reserves of Thorium (estimates are over 4000 years powering the entire grid, even given increased needs).

>We have plenty of natural gas to tide us over until we get Thorium operational on the grid. Once we get it operational, the solar guys and the fusion guys have 4000 years to get their sources up to usable speed (maybe they will be able to do it by then!).
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
jareth6
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.