PDA

View Full Version : Electicity and Ethical Considerations



Yanee
01-28-2005, 07:53 AM
Does Electricity kill a large amount of animals or not?
I notice in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity, that electricity can be generated by such means as coal, oil, hydropower and nuclear power. I'm wondering if they do a large or negligible harm to living animals both directly as an ingredient or indirectly such as in the processing (of hydropower with fish)

Does electric generation for your energy provider cause a noticeable amount of animal suffering directly?

mod note: This thread originally included a poll, but the poll was removed and the thread renamed.

Emiloid
01-28-2005, 12:52 PM
Yanee, are you concerned about whether using energy is OK for vegans? I wonder about your intentions here... what are you trying to figure out exactly? Polls are really best suited for personal experience and/or opinions, rather than facts, so I'm not sure why this is a poll.

With regard to energy consumption... sadly, nothing we do in this world completely eliminates suffering of all kinds. We can only do our best, reducing animal suffering and our impact on the environment.

zatoichi
01-28-2005, 01:19 PM
yeah, this poll sort of reminds me of the mainstream news media. they don't really seek out the facts, just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions.

iamtheqbu
08-04-2005, 09:20 AM
Maybe some of what's at issue is what kinds of power plants your provider uses. Some providers are sucking on the coal teat while others strive to provide alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.

I know that there's an initiave in Pennsyvania to promote alterantive energy sources by requiring providers to subscribe to a minimum percantage of 'alternative sources'.

Unfortunately not just wind and solar count as alternative, so do things like waste coal, which is more toxic and polluting (especially with respect to sulfur compounds) than regular coal. :mad:

There was some action going on earlier in the year to specify that alternative needed to mean CLEAN alternative, but I'm not sure how it worked out. Anyone know?

vegankitty
02-06-2007, 10:00 AM
Oops-voted wrong-meant to vote probably directlly and indirectly.Noo idea really.

nauthiz
02-06-2007, 10:29 AM
I'd say that certain forms of energy production are definitely more harmful than others, but I wouldn't categorically blame electricity. Without it, most people would probably heat their homes by burning either coal or wood in each house.* It's harder to control for emissions in such a situation, so that might end up being even more harmful.

My brother, for example, lives near Crested Butte, CO. You have to get a permit to have a wood-burning fireplace there because the pollution from them settles right there in the valley and there would be serious smog problems if they were to allow anyone who wants to to heat their house with a stove.

*I realize everyone could run their own wind turbine, but that's still electricity. I'm all for more looking into decentralized energy production systems; there's a lot of inefficiency that's introduced by the long distances that power is transported and cutting out waste is never a bad idea.

stegan
02-06-2007, 10:37 AM
There was an interesting article in Discover (http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/clean-coal-technology/) a couple of months ago about the resurgance in coal and the so-called "clean coal" technologies. The biggest observation was that, yeah, this reduces emissions in the air, but a.) it pumps them into the sea in some cases and b.) you still have to destroy parts of the land to mine the coal, thus displacing animals from their habitats.

Kat
02-06-2007, 10:53 AM
Without it, most people would probably heat their homes by burning either coal or wood in each house.

I realize everyone could run their own wind turbine, but that's still electricity.

I don't agree with these statements. In order for people to heat their homes with wood and coal, people would need to have fireplaces and/or wood stoves in their homes. This may be largely true where we live, but folks in apartment buildings generally do not have this option.

As for wind turbines, that also assumes that everyone has a yard, and thousands of dollars they can devote to purchasing and installing their wind turbines.

nauthiz
02-06-2007, 11:33 AM
I don't agree with these statements. In order for people to heat their homes with wood and coal, people would need to have fireplaces and/or wood stoves in their homes. This may be largely true where we live, but folks in apartment buildings generally do not have this option.

There's an old coal chute in the side of the apartment building I live in, because the heating system used to be coal-fired.

Emiloid
02-06-2007, 12:07 PM
Does anyone care if I chnage this thread to something that makes more sense? That is, remove the poll and rename it "Electricity and Ethical Considerations" or something?

I don't think the poll makes sense in this case. Polls measure opinions or behaviors. This one is trying to measure facts that most of us wouldn't know about in the first place. We should definitely discuss electricity, but... I dunno, that poll grates on my nerves. :confused:

grog
02-06-2007, 12:16 PM
but it stands as homage to the random yanee guy's whackyness.... :silly:

nauthiz
02-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Can the poll be changed to checkboxes? I want to vote for like 12 of the options to reflect the fact that I'm really not sure.

stegan
02-06-2007, 12:19 PM
I'm with you, Em- no matter what grog says. ;)

Emiloid
02-06-2007, 02:01 PM
OK, I fixed it. Not perfect, but better. :p

Chijou_no_seiza
02-09-2007, 03:40 AM
I don't agree with these statements. In order for people to heat their homes with wood and coal, people would need to have fireplaces and/or wood stoves in their homes. This may be largely true where we live, but folks in apartment buildings generally do not have this option.

As for wind turbines, that also assumes that everyone has a yard, and thousands of dollars they can devote to purchasing and installing their wind turbines.

I have to agree with Kat. Wind turbines, hydroelectric power, and geothermal all all types of energy sources which can only be effective depending on the environmental conditions they are put in. Wind turbines do not work in all locations, they have to be strategically placed.

As for killing animals I am firmly against nuclear energy because of the current inadequate storage facilities and the unknown environmental (and therefore by definition animal) impacts.

There are proposed types of energy (as proposed by PopSci) -like wind turbines that go thousands of feet in the air in which they would produce energy and yet not be at an altitude in which birds fly. Also potentially another source would be transmitting a widespread waves which would also not affect bird populations.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is.. yes ultimately different energy types will affect animals negatively by either destroying their habitats or killing them directly, but we have the potential to use more sustainable and animal-safe technologies.

emzy1985
02-18-2007, 06:33 AM
I am totally opposed to nuclear power simply because nuclear waste is unsafe and takes thousands of years to biodegrade!

I saw a windturbine for sale in B&Q (DiY shop) for 1400 the other day. Supposedly it can power your whole house and all you need do is stick it in th back yard or on your roof. Sounds good but 1400 is like $2200 dollars to you guys which is alot of money that I dont have. Secondly what if it breaks? Thirdly what about the birds in my garden? It is a crazy notion to think we can continue to keep using all this fossil fuel but like others before me have said....we need to look into enviromental impact before anything else... I mean isnt that why we want green energy anyway?