Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    That seems to be the problem here. People who are against alternative energies because of their inefficient state at the moment, are asking for a new form of energy to be handed to them on a silver platter, ready to be used, functional, efficient and profitable right from the get go.
    No, the real problem is Solar power may not be viable within our lifetimes, Wind power will NEVER be viable, geothermal power is so brutal on the equipment its not viable yet, and hydroelectric power is even more damaging to the environment then coal. Nuclear power is the one viable form of alternative energy we have, and people aren't willing to fund it since they want the pie in the sky perfect forms of energy that produce no pollution and have no risk.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    No, the real problem is Solar power may not be viable within our lifetimes, Wind power will NEVER be viable, geothermal power is so brutal on the equipment its not viable yet, and hydroelectric power is even more damaging to the environment then coal.
    You just demonstrated another problem in the equation: you cannot comprehend that when someone suggest alternative forms of energy to you, they are infact suggesting them in plural. I am not suggesting that we should replace all non-renewable forms of energy with only one type of renewable energy, but rather with a combination of them all.

    For the sake of argument let's assume we had started with renewable sources of energy to begin with and hardly any recearch would've gone into non-renewable sources of energy. All that time and effort would've gone into the former. We wouldn't be having this discussion then.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    No, the real problem is Solar power may not be viable within our lifetimes, Wind power will NEVER be viable, geothermal power is so brutal on the equipment its not viable yet, and hydroelectric power is even more damaging to the environment then coal. Nuclear power is the one viable form of alternative energy we have, and people aren't willing to fund it since they want the pie in the sky perfect forms of energy that produce no pollution and have no risk.
    There is no 'real' problem.

    Aside from that, I'd like you to open a dictionary and go to the 'v' section and then to the page with 'vi' to see what 'viable' means.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    You just demonstrated another problem in the equation: you cannot comprehend that when someone suggest alternative forms of energy to you, they are infact suggesting them in plural. I am not suggesting that we should replace all non-renewable forms of energy with only one type of renewable energy, but rather with a combination of them all.

    For the sake of argument let's assume we had started with renewable sources of energy to begin with and hardly any recearch would've gone into non-renewable sources of energy. All that time and effort would've gone into the former. We wouldn't be having this discussion then.
    So combining several forms of non viable energy production magically makes them viable? Oh wait, no it doesn't. It creates a stupidly expensive extremely difficult to maintain mess of a system that could be handled much easier by a single coal plant at most likely half the cost. Solar energy needs about three quantum leaps of technology before its viable, Wind power WILL never be viable as any more then a nice extraneous source of power, geothermal is exactly what I said, and hydroelectric is reliant of rivers and is worse then coal. These are your choices besides Nuclear and Coal, combining them doesn't make the downsides go away, it just means you may scrape enough power out of them to support a city...at 4-5 times the cost of a coal plant.

    ---------- Post added 2011-07-31 at 05:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Fhaz View Post
    There is no 'real' problem.

    Aside from that, I'd like you to open a dictionary and go to the 'v' section and then to the page with 'vi' to see what 'viable' means.
    vi·a·ble/ˈvīəbəl/Adjective

    1. Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable"


    Funny thing about that usage in a sentence, it makes my point. I'm stating its not economically viable, its not profitable to do it that way, and throwing money into the gutter is well...stupid.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    So combining several forms of non viable energy production magically makes them viable?
    I am not suggesting magic as a solution (I know it's a long term goal), it is YOU who is asking a magical solution (it should be ready and viable right now; as we speak, without further reseach).

    Wind power WILL never be viable as any more then a nice extraneous source of power
    source?

  6. #26
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post
    Australia , with Communist Dictators Messers J.Gillard & B Brown


    lol nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aussiedude View Post

    Have just introduced a Carbon Tax
    I think you're a year ahead of yourself.

    OT, Solar or Nuclear are the only "real" if you will alternative sources at the moment. Nuclear however, does have a horrible track record and produces waste, which has to go somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elementium View Post
    People so addicted that they're actually angry at Blizzard for WoW getting old >.< Insulting WoW because your tired of it is like hating your dad because he's older than you and not as fun as your friends.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    source?
    Having an IQ higher then my age. Wind is unreliable, takes up a massive amount of space (fields of windmills are fun), and isn't terribly efficient (or efficient at all tbqh). Doesn't help the things are nightmarish to repair and maintain since they are left exposed to the elements without any real protection.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    Having an IQ higher then my age. Wind is unreliable, takes up a massive amount of space (fields of windmills are fun), and isn't terribly efficient (or efficient at all tbqh). Doesn't help the things are nightmarish to repair and maintain since they are left exposed to the elements without any real protection.
    Again you are speaking about it as it is at the moment.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    vi·a·ble/ˈvīəbəl/Adjective

    1. Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable"


    Funny thing about that usage in a sentence, it makes my point. I'm stating its not economically viable, its not profitable to do it that way, and throwing money into the gutter is well...stupid.
    You are stating it now, but where were you stating it here;

    No, the real problem is Solar power may not be viable within our lifetimes, Wind power will NEVER be viable, geothermal power is so brutal on the equipment its not viable yet, and hydroelectric power is even more damaging to the environment then coal.
    ?

    You where simply claiming it wasn't viable, in which case it defaults to not being able or capable of working successfully.

    So combining several forms of non viable energy production magically makes them viable? Oh wait, no it doesn't. It creates a stupidly expensive extremely difficult to maintain mess of a system that could be handled much easier by a single coal plant at most likely half the cost. Solar energy needs about three quantum leaps of technology before its viable, Wind power WILL never be viable as any more then a nice extraneous source of power, geothermal is exactly what I said, and hydroelectric is reliant of rivers and is worse then coal. These are your choices besides Nuclear and Coal, combining them doesn't make the downsides go away, it just means you may scrape enough power out of them to support a city...at 4-5 times the cost of a coal plant.
    There's more to it then monetary cost.

    Also, to add another to the list Nitrogen. We're powering a small city with it. The Nitrogen is a remainder of a productional facility nearby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    Having an IQ higher then my age. Wind is unreliable, takes up a massive amount of space (fields of windmills are fun), and isn't terribly efficient (or efficient at all tbqh). Doesn't help the things are nightmarish to repair and maintain since they are left exposed to the elements without any real protection.
    Not high enough to see past the limitations of current deployment and or current methods of use.
    Last edited by Fhaz; 2011-07-31 at 12:24 PM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    Having an IQ higher then my age. Wind is unreliable, takes up a massive amount of space (fields of windmills are fun), and isn't terribly efficient (or efficient at all tbqh). Doesn't help the things are nightmarish to repair and maintain since they are left exposed to the elements without any real protection.
    Don't forget that the (energy) costs to produce one are so high, that it takes 20 years of usage to outweigh them.
    So you build a bunch of wind wheels, let them run for 20 years and THAT'S when you start making profit. (Maintenance is included, unusual problems[damages] not.)
    BTW: There's all that talk about "natural disasters making nuclear plants unsafe"... well then, show me the windwheel that keeps standing when an earthquake hits that's strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.
    It's astonishing how confused people get when a sentence does not end as they potato.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    BTW: There's all that talk about "natural disasters making nuclear plants unsafe"... well then, show me the windwheel that keeps standing when an earthquake hits that's strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.
    Because a blade does more damage then... I don't know, miles of radiation. Possible explosion, thousands of mutations over several decades due to said radiation. No. I'm pretty sure having a blade or ten flying around in a place full of high poles will do more damage. Yeah. Really.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    BTW: There's all that talk about "natural disasters making nuclear plants unsafe"... well then, show me the windwheel that keeps standing when an earthquake hits that's strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.
    Show me the windmill that causes Chernobyl if it falls over.

    Next time you try to use an analogy, think it over twice before let it be known in public. Seriously, that argument was so much fail there's no words.
    Last edited by zorkuus; 2011-07-31 at 12:34 PM.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Fhaz View Post
    You are stating it now, but where were you stating it here;

    ?

    You where simply claiming it wasn't viable, in which case it defaults to not being able or capable of working successfully.

    There's more to it then monetary cost.

    Also, to add another to the list Nitrogen. We're powering a small city with it. The Nitrogen is a remainder of a productional facility nearby.
    If you've looked at what I've said I've since the very first posting made it clear the issue is money vs. production capability. Geothermal isn't viable because it rusts the equipment too fast (forcing constant replacement...which costs money). Solar power takes up too much room and doesn't generate enough juice, it also is a bitch to maintain and repair making it NON PROFITABLE. Wind Power is a joke, NEXT. Hydroelectric works, except for the fact it goes against the reasons for alternative power sources and requires a very specific set of circumstances, once again rendering it non viable, albeit for a different reason.
    Monetary issues ARE the main issue, sorry if you think otherwise but people don't do things that bankrupt them, and when governments throw money away on pipedream's well...we remove them from power.

    Liquid Nitrogen like Hydrogen power is a ways away, I will grant you that it is interesting in the same way Cane Ethanol is an interesting idea, (Ethanol made from Corn isn't viable, its been granted tons of government research funding however because of how much the corn industry has pushed for it)

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    I was expecting you to bring up that age old argument.

    "Alternative energy is too inefficient!"

    Well guess why? Because people are too complacent and used to their old ways, and that's why alternative energy reseach and development doesn't get enough attention and funding to make them more efficient.
    Windmills don't work if there is too much or too few wind, it has to be about perfect for them to operate.
    And even then it takes a few years for them to even bring enough energy to justify the cost of building. They are really expensive.

    Solar panels are a bit better, but the plan of Japan to put them outside of Earth's orbit is great. They produce so much more energy there.
    I guess it would be a good idea to put them on the moon permanently, instead of orbiting like a satelite for a few years.

    As for nuclear energy, I see nothing wrong with it. The only danger is due to Uranium/Plutonium splitting. It's much safer to go with Thorium splitting, but those plants were never realized because they couldn't be used for Nuclear Weapons. Or even better is Nuclear Fusion, which is almost 100% safe. It's exactly what the sun does on a much bigger scale.

    So why go for solar panels that can get energy from the sun, when we can have the power of the sun in our own hands?

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Fhaz View Post
    You are stating it now, but where were you stating it here;

    What?
    ?

    You where simply claiming it wasn't viable, in which case it defaults to not being able or capable of working successfully.
    Uhm, no.
    If you wanted to get to school the cheapest way possible and your school is a 15min footwalk away. Then renting a taxi to bring you to an airport, fly to mexico, buy a helicopter, fly with it to your school and land on top of the building, then go down the side of the building with a newly-built elevator is not viable. It would be successful, just not viable from a monetary standpoint.
    Similarly, energy generation through methods other than nuclear power is also not financially viable. No matter how good your wind wheels are, they'll just not be able to beat a nuclear plant in efficiency. [And that by an extreme longshot.]

    There's more to it then monetary cost.

    Also, to add another to the list Nitrogen. We're powering a small city with it. The Nitrogen is a remainder of a productional facility nearby.
    There's not much more to it, except for popularity/chances of being reelected. Many people don't like the fact that nuclear power comes at the cost of nuclear waste and can potentially lead to serious damage to the environment.
    Hence they prefer energy production through sources that do not damage us as directly as nuclear power would. [Yes, building wind wheels, operating water plants, etc. all do pose threats to human life and the environment. They're just not as obvious as a meltdown and as nuclear waste, hence people prefer to ignore them.]
    Again, nitrogen is not viable.

    BTW: Viability should be the very first concern, simply because it needs to be viable enough to be worth it. If something takes too long to outweigh it's cost, possibly even longer than it's own life-time, then it's simply not worth it. It's also (most likely) not worth it to invest into it any further, as the chance that it at some point changes from being absolutely not viable to viable is just abysmally small.
    Not high enough to see past the limitations of current deployment and or current methods of use.
    Future methods of use won't change, future deployment could be better. That still doesn't change the fact that you can only use them while the wind is actually blowing and that you can't use them when the wind is blowing too strongly.


    BTW: I always hear that alternative energy sources would be better if people were researching it more... short question, would you prefer highly efficient solar plants over nuclear fusion?

    ---------- Post added 2011-07-31 at 12:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Show me the windmill that causes Chernobyl if it falls over.

    Next time you try to use an analogy, think it over twice before let it be known in public. Seriously, that argument was so much fail there's no words.
    So, I state that no windmills would survive an earthquake strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.

    For some reason, I can't quite grasp what reason it is, this suddenly means that I stated that windmills that get hit by earthquakes cause gigantic explosions... huh, strange, right?
    It's astonishing how confused people get when a sentence does not end as they potato.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    So, I state that no windmills would survive an earthquake strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.

    For some reason, I can't quite grasp what reason it is, this suddenly means that I stated that windmills that get hit by earthquakes cause gigantic explosions... huh, strange, right?
    That wasn't the only thing you stated. You specifically referred to their unsafety because of natural disasters:
    BTW: There's all that talk about "natural disasters making nuclear plants unsafe"... well then, show me the windwheel that keeps standing when an earthquake hits that's strong enough to damage a nuclear plant.
    Windmills aren't unsafe if they are damaged by natural disasters, they just go out of operation. Not so much for nuclear power plants. The word you should've used (if that's even what you meant) was reliability, not safety. And in that case no form of power is absolutely reliable. Everything can be affected by natural disasters. But not all are equally safe.

  17. #37

  18. #38
    Liquid Nitrogen like Hydrogen power is a ways away, I will grant you that it is interesting in the same way Cane Ethanol is an interesting idea, (Ethanol made from Corn isn't viable, its been granted tons of government research funding however because of how much the corn industry has pushed for it)
    In large scale use? It's actually starting to be deployed more for larger purposes and interesting research is starting to blossom. Such as using a modified aluminium rather then platinum as a catalyst. Sure, we won't see a power-plant based on it within a decade, but if we want to see one within the next decades we might start trying to build prototypes and or invest in research for it, just like we did with coal, nuclear and so forth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Notalent View Post
    If you've looked at what I've said I've since the very first posting made it clear the issue is money vs. production capability. Geothermal isn't viable because it rusts the equipment too fast (forcing constant replacement...which costs money). Solar power takes up too much room and doesn't generate enough juice, it also is a bitch to maintain and repair making it NON PROFITABLE. Wind Power is a joke, NEXT. Hydroelectric works, except for the fact it goes against the reasons for alternative power sources and requires a very specific set of circumstances, once again rendering it non viable, albeit for a different reason.
    Monetary issues ARE the main issue, sorry if you think otherwise but people don't do things that bankrupt them, and when governments throw money away on pipedream's well...we remove them from power.
    Just because the market doesn't charge you for the waste and or other draw-backs, doesn't mean those sources cost less or are profitable. It means that the money to take care of that is coming from somewhere else and thus is very much part of the total equation determining actual cost. We may not pay the costs of climate change, lost biodiversity, air and water pollution, adverse health effects, etc. up front, but we do have to pay them eventually.

    If we can artificially keep the cost of Coal and or Nuclear power low, the same can be done with Solar, Wind or Thermal power. Which currently isn't done to the extend that it is done with Coal. (Nuclear is reasonably steady in price and is about half as cost effective as current Hydro)

    More over... I find it a bit a surprise that you think Wind is a joke, when Solar is about three times the cost of Wind and Wind is about twice the cost of Nuclear (And 1,8 times the cost of Coal). Also wind is about half the cost of gas, which isn't used as much, but still.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    What?
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    Uhm, no.
    If you wanted to get to school the cheapest way possible and your school is a 15min footwalk away. Then renting a taxi to bring you to an airport, fly to mexico, buy a helicopter, fly with it to your school and land on top of the building, then go down the side of the building with a newly-built elevator is not viable. It would be successful, just not viable from a monetary standpoint. Similarly, energy generation through methods other than nuclear power is also not financially viable. No matter how good your wind wheels are, they'll just not be able to beat a nuclear plant in efficiency. [And that by an extreme longshot.]


    Why are you even quoting a post that's not directed to you and holds no substantial point towards you?
    As for your claim of Nuclear energy, see above. It's not all that. Sorry.

    There's not much more to it, except for popularity/chances of being reelected. Many people don't like the fact that nuclear power comes at the cost of nuclear waste and can potentially lead to serious damage to the environment.
    Hence they prefer energy production through sources that do not damage us as directly as nuclear power would. [Yes, building wind wheels, operating water plants, etc. all do pose threats to human life and the environment. They're just not as obvious as a meltdown and as nuclear waste, hence people prefer to ignore them.] Again, nitrogen is not viable.


    Oh, so there's not much too it, yet you list several points that are too it. Could you decide on which of the two it is, there being more to it, or there not being more to it?

    Nitrogen as it's deployed in busses and the like is expensive, but as it's deployed within my example it's far cheaper then nuclear power will ever be. Even more so when they'll integrate the research I spoke of. So in reality it's viable, if it's not within your dream world. That's okay.

    BTW: Viability should be the very first concern, simply because it needs to be viable enough to be worth it. If something takes too long to outweigh it's cost, possibly even longer than it's own life-time, then it's simply not worth it. It's also (most likely) not worth it to invest into it any further, as the chance that it at some point changes from being absolutely not viable to viable is just abysmally small.
    Are you a playing a Paladin perhaps?


    Future methods of use won't change, future deployment could be better. That still doesn't change the fact that you can only use them while the wind is actually blowing and that you can't use them when the wind is blowing too strongly.

    There's a reason why you place wind-mills in a place with... a lot of wind. And solar-panels in a place with a lot of sun and so forth...
    Last edited by Fhaz; 2011-07-31 at 01:26 PM.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Fhaz View Post
    [SIZE=2]Why are you even quoting a post that's not directed to you and holds no substantial point towards you?

    Oh, my bad, I seem to have mistaken this for a discussion board, when it's apparently just an instant messanger that fails at keeping things between the two people talking to each other. [See, I can even read stuff from people I'm not talking to. This system must really fail...]

    Oh, so there's not much too it, yet you list several points that are too it. Could you decide on which of the two it is, there being more to it, or there not being more to it?
    Not being "much more" to it. I listed one(depending on how precise you wanna get it could be two) additional reasons aside from money. There are no others.
    Do you still not get it that it's "more" but not "much more" than just one reason?

    Nitrogen as it's deployed in busses and the like is expensive, but as it's deployed within my example it's far cheaper then nuclear power will ever be. Even more so when they'll integrate the research I spoke of. So in reality it's viable, if it's not within your dream world. That's okay.
    So because one factory produces nitrogen it's suddenly a good idea to invest lots of money into researching ways to make better use of it? So we can use all that nitrogen to support 2 cities instead of a single one?
    Awesome. And I thought building a multi-million dollar bridge for frogs to cross a highway was a good investion.

    Are you a playing a Paladin perhaps?
    What is this, I don't even... No, I don't. Still, what did you... why did... huh?

    There's a reason why you place wind-mills in a place with... a lot of wind. And solar-panels in a place with a lot of sun and so forth...
    You missed the point. The fact that you need the appropriate strength of wind to have them work is still a major downside, similar to the fact that solar-panels don't work when the sun's not shining.
    It's astonishing how confused people get when a sentence does not end as they potato.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Voij View Post
    Oh, my bad, I seem to have mistaken this for a discussion board, when it's apparently just an instant messanger that fails at keeping things between the two people talking to each other. [See, I can even read stuff from people I'm not talking to. This system must really fail...]
    Yes, because your opinion is really of value when the reply it musters toward my post consist of a single word displaying confusion and the later trying to reply to a running discussion about the specifics of implications made within another persons post. You did not contribute anything toward that end.

    Not being "much more" to it. I listed one(depending on how precise you wanna get it could be two) additional reasons aside from money. There are no others. Do you still not get it that it's "more" but not "much more" than just one reason?
    And as such I stated that there was more to it, though we're still far from listing all the matters that concern it.

    So because one factory produces nitrogen it's suddenly a good idea to invest lots of money into researching ways to make better use of it? So we can use all that nitrogen to support 2 cities instead of a single one? Awesome. And I thought building a multi-million dollar bridge for frogs to cross a highway was a good investion.
    Where did I state a lot of money?

    What is this, I don't even... No, I don't. Still, what did you... why did... huh?
    It was a harmless joke, it's well know that Paladins love the word 'viable'.

    You missed the point. The fact that you need the appropriate strength of wind to have them work is still a major downside, similar to the fact that solar-panels don't work when the sun's not shining.
    And you think I didn't know that? I could say that you too missed a point. Perhaps one about every place having it's own solution or every solution having it's own place. Take it what-ever way you will.

Posting Permissions

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