Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    16,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Vizardlorde View Post
    Idc if i sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist, but the gas companies are purposely hindering the development of new technologies that make alternative energy sources more appealing in order to make a killing while gas lasts, even if that means buying every invention and burning the plans and prototypes right away.
    Yeah, you do sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  2. #22
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    I guess you're not aware that they already have sustained fusion reactions. The only issue now is getting a net energy gain from the process. Right now you have to put in more energy than you get out. Thanks for being constructive though...
    I've been more than aware of what folks have been up to with Fusion. It's still a technology demo. Like Lithium-Air batteries, they are a 'thing' that science can point at and say they're doing stuff - but they are very far away from a practical, real-world application.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rld-using.html

    Just last year. They got 192 lasers to create a 500 TW flash. They need to multipy that by 1,000. AND figure out a way to contain it. But hey - don't take my word for it. How about MIT?

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...your-questions

    "First, the current official plan is that ITER will demonstrate net fusion gain (Q = 10, that is, ten times more fusion power out than heating power put in) in about 2028 or 2029. At that point, designs can begin for a “DEMO”, which is the fusion community’s term for a demonstration power plant. That would come online around 2040 (and would putt watts on the grid, although probably at an economic loss at first), and would be followed by (profitable, economic) commercial plants around 2050."
    This assumes they can resolve all the issues in #5...
    1 – Non-inductive current drive.
    2 – Confining a 'burning plasma.'
    3 – Confining a steady-state burning plasma while avoiding off-normal events.
    4 – Validated predictive capability for fusion-grade plasmas.
    5 – Diagnosing a burning plasma.
    6 – Better understanding of plasma–wall interactions.
    7 – Materials for plasma-facing components.
    8 – Magnets that meet the plasma physics requirements and allow reactor maintainability at reasonable costs.
    9 – Design and materials for tritium fuel cycle and power extraction.
    10 – Reliability, availability, maintainability, and inspectability (RAMI) of the reactor designs.

    So that's quite a LOT of assumptions that they are making to even say they will have anything of value by the year 2050.

  3. #23
    Energy Production
    Short term: Generation III Nuclear. Anyone who mentions the term "Alternative Energy" and doesn't include nuclear shouldn't be taken seriously. They should be laughed off the stage. Nuclear provides the most power in the smallest footprint with zero after-construction carbon emissions. Solar will have a significant role too.

    Medium Term: Thorium Based Nuclear Reactors. Pioneers in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s... the technology wasn't truly mature enough yet. But it's time is fast approaching.

    Long Term: Space Based Solar. It's not far fetched at all, nor particularly difficult to build, especially since the "sllar panels" would be printed quasi-fabric like quilts rather than rigid panels. Sound far fetched? The US launched a signals intelligence spy sattelite with a mesh antenna (so very similar technology) in January, that once it unfolded, became larger than football field. Energy would be transported from space via laser.

    Very Long Term: Fusion. Three approaches are being worked on. One will succeed. It will then have to be scaled up and physically downsized (both challenges, but far from impossible). But because of low investment, Fusion development timescales is very long.


    Energy Storage
    Near Term: Batteries. For everything. Including cars. Plugging everything into the grid is fine.

    Long Term: Fuel Cells. Again, an investment mountain more than a technology one.


    Wind particularly is completely a first-world feel good exercise. It isn't scalable at all.

  4. #24
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,339
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    Just last year. They got 192 lasers to create a 500 TW flash. They need to multipy that by 1,000. AND figure out a way to contain it. But hey - don't take my word for it. How about MIT?
    The NIF 500TW shot was an experiment. It was a demonstration of the technology. Also, I don't know what you mean by "they need to multiply that by 1000". The press release they put out says it's 1000 times more powerful than what the United States uses at any given time. I think you misunderstood it.


    here's the article from the source: https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleas...-12-07-01.html

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    They've been saying that for decades, and yet here we are still... In order to be competitive with coal or nuclear, Wind/Solar would need to become between 4 to 6 times more efficient than they are currently. Like batteries, there is no secret cabal of fossil fuel companies trying to 'corrupt' anything. It is simply physics. The maximum PERIOD degree of efficiency possible from solar to electric conversion is about 78%. Current market products operate at about an 18% level. The most exotic, expensive materials science can create only goose it to about 30%. So even if rare, uber-expensive materials were common as dirt it is only possible to DOUBLE the efficiency of solar panels to 30%. That's not a conspiracy. That's just physics telling you that the 'dream' is impossible with terrestrial technology.

    There's a place for solar/wind. But it is not a solution for national energy needs - at least not now. Nuclear and Natural Gas are the realistic solutions, with clean burning coal as the Quarterback until they are ready.
    If we can't realistically go much higher than 20% efficiency in solar cells, why not simply greatly increase the amount of surface area they cover? Granted, the efficiency of these particular cells are like ten times less than the silicon cells, but this is just an example. There's plenty of innovation in the area of photovoltaics research, so don't discount solar cells simply because their efficiency is (presently) severely limited.
    Last edited by Lolercaust; 2012-09-13 at 09:24 PM.

  6. #26
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    I think you misunderstood it.
    No - I understood it perfectly - it is you who misread the article... And I quote...

    "To hit the point of 'ignition', that energy release needs to rise by a factor of around 1,000. The technology challenges are considerable."
    The energy release was 500TW. "The Energy release needs to rise by a factor of around 1,000".

    Space Based Solar. It's not far fetched at all, nor particularly difficult to build, especially since the "sllar panels" would be printed quasi-fabric like quilts rather than rigid panels. Sound far fetched? The US launched a signals intelligence spy sattelite with a mesh antenna (so very similar technology) in January, that once it unfolded, became larger than football field. Energy would be transported from space via laser.
    M'eh - I really doubt this is practical in scale. It's one thing to put up one satellite doing this. It's quite another to put up dozens, or hundreds of them. Especially when you consider that we're already running out of 'real estate' up there. There's so much space junk up there already that it is pretty mind boggling. How you'd jockey around all these huge solar panels without having them get smashed to bits by the thousands of other satellites and other junk up there would be quite an accomplishment.

    There's plenty of innovation in the area of photovoltaics research, so don't discount solar cells simply because their efficiency is (presently) severely limited.
    It is more that I discount solar because it is inefficient AND expensive AND geographically limited - but I digress. I'm not saying give up on solar. I'm saying we don't pin our nation's energy future on it. Solar will always have a niche in some places, but it is simply not practical as a solution for the "nation's" energy needs. Solar will never be able to reliably or affordably provide power for all the things the nation needs (residential, transportation, manufacturing).
    Last edited by The Riddler; 2012-09-13 at 09:33 PM.

  7. #27
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    342
    i think tidal power can be a good thing too, i honestly think the effects on the wildlife are neglectible.
    solar energy is a "no brainer" there are some really large thermal through plants and the solar panels ones aren't that inefficient anymore.
    wind energy is pretty usable as well. roughly 20% of denmarks energy usage can be sated through it!
    but the real problem lies within the crazy amount of energy we use. just take the usa as an example they need bout 90MW/h per capita thats more than double the amount of the EU-27 and close to 5 times as much as china but some might say you can't/shouldn't compare those.

  8. #28
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    The energy release was 500TW. "The Energy release needs to rise by a factor of around 1,000".
    I just went over the article 4 times. Either i'm blind or you're pulling things out of your arse. Either way, even if it needs to be 1000 times bigger, i don't doubt scientists because they're all convinced we'll have fusion by 2050. This includes ITER.

  9. #29
    The Lightbringer Pud'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Behind you, what I'm not? Then who's this person I'm behind?
    Posts
    2,998
    I've always thought that nuclear energy makes for a better replacement over our current use of fossil fuels. The problem however is, whenever someone gets the thought of a nuclear power plant near their home. They immediately get the images of Homer Simpson workers, Mr. Burns tycoons, three-eyed fishes in their lakes, and of nuclear pollution as a result of steam (water actually) generated by power plants, in their heads :/.
    Last edited by Pud'n; 2012-09-13 at 11:16 PM.

  10. #30
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Pud'n View Post
    I've always thought that nuclear energy makes for a better replacement than our current use of fossil fuels. The problem is, whenever someone gets the thought of a nuclear power plant near their home. They immediately get the images of Homer Simpson workers, Mr. Burns tycoons, three-eyed fishes in their lakes, and of nuclear pollution as a result of steam (water actually) generated by their power plants, in their heads :/.
    I seriously don't understand that. There's a nuclear plant 10km from my city (the capital). What's up with people being so afraid of them. The chances of something happening to a nuclear power plant are probably equal to something happening with a stored nuclear warhead. Yet people aren't afraid of those. :S

  11. #31
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed Shut View Post
    Here's the problem. 1 nuclear plant produces 1000 megawatts per hour. You would need 60,000 acres and 2,400 to 2,800 wind turbines to equal that output.
    Closer to 50k acres and 600-ish turbines (more if you want higher consistent power) if you scaled up the 150MWp Centennial wind farm we have here.

    Furthermore, wind farms do not require exclusive use of the land.
    Last edited by Masark; 2012-09-13 at 10:59 PM.

  12. #32
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    16,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    I seriously don't understand that. There's a nuclear plant 10km from my city (the capital). What's up with people being so afraid of them. The chances of something happening to a nuclear power plant are probably equal to something happening with a stored nuclear warhead. Yet people aren't afraid of those. :S
    Nuclear power plants are where the giant ants and Godzilla come from.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  13. #33
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Nuclear power plants are where the giant ants and Godzilla come from.
    Oh well, i guess that makes sense, seeing as Japan is full of nuclear power plants.

  14. #34
    I'd go for nuclear power in the transition stage to fusion power, but I know the political climate is set against it.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Oh well, i guess that makes sense, seeing as Japan is full of nuclear power plants.
    uhhh not for long

    http://news.yahoo.com/cabinet-panel-...ce.html?_esi=1
    http://raptr.com/puremallace/about

    What has been made by QQ can be unmade by QQ!!!

  16. #36
    The Insane Reeve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    16,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Puremallace View Post
    That makes me sad. I mean if they can figure out how to do renewable sources better, awesome, but if not, I'd much rather see more nuclear than coal or gas.
    Well 1, 2, 3, take my hand and come with me
    Because you look so fine
    And I really wanna make you mine

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    I just went over the article 4 times. Either i'm blind or you're pulling things out of your arse. Either way, even if it needs to be 1000 times bigger, i don't doubt scientists because they're all convinced we'll have fusion by 2050. This includes ITER.
    Hes pulling things out his arse. He also seems to claim that solar and wind has not become more efficent which is just wrong.

    The only reason enery output from fusion is less than the input is due to them being small. No one is or has ever been concerned about this as a real problem since scaling up increases the output much faster than the input requirements. The biggest problem is degredation of the containment walls. It is a big problem but unsuprisingly that is a large focus on research.

  18. #38
    Any energy source that humanity can tap into at will, is going to be abused until it is depleted or until it tears our environment apart. If we could find a way to syphon the sun's energy instead of having to wait for it to arrive naturally we would probably exhaust that in a couple of hundred years.
    Which is exactly why the suns energy is the safest bet... (By that I mean solar/wind/water/biofuel/plants which are all derived from the sun) If we can learn to survive on that alone (learn to exploit it more efficiently and reduce the energy consumption to that level) our civilization might have a chance not to destroy itself.

  19. #39
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Goretusker View Post
    Any energy source that humanity can tap into at will, is going to be abused until it is depleted or until it tears our environment apart. If we could find a way to syphon the sun's energy instead of having to wait for it to arrive naturally we would probably exhaust that in a couple of hundred years.
    There's a simpler solution; make our own suns. By that, of course, i mean, reproduce what happens in the sun, which would be fusion power (experimental research is developing nicely in this area, we should have commercialized fusion power by 2050). The material heated is used for non-important things, and estimates are that there are 5 000 years' worth of supplies of it on Earth that we have access too (deuterium and tritium). Besides that, 1 in every 6420 hydrogen atoms is deuterium and one in every. As for tritium, there are literally 10 different ways to create it, and it won't be a problem since we've been making it since 1955 (255 kg has been made so far, while MILIgrams are needed for nuclear fusion, amounts smaller by a factor of millions).

  20. #40
    I think solar is best alternative of energy.Solar panels are really a fantastic idea for homes. Installing solar panels in the house will increase the resale value of your house and you are completely independent of energy.solar panel absorbs the energy from sun light and convert that energy into electricity.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 01:42 PM ----------

    wind power can also be a good option :-)


    Infracted.

    Don't necro old threads, even if they are still up to discussion, just make a new one if so.
    Last edited by Majad; 2012-12-03 at 01:49 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •