Forums » Off-Topic
I didn't say solar took too much space, but rather that that is a common argument against proposed major solar plants. I didn't make up the turtles; I can't remember the source since it was years ago, but I did read an article about a major solar plant that never got built due to complaints that it would disrupt the migration of some reptile or other, I think it was turtles but I can't remember. Solar has a future when we can make it convert a higher percentage of sunlight to electricity; for now I think solar's place is in personal solar panels on your own home. I plan to have solar panels on my home when I have my own and not an apartment; I think they look cool, and are a good way to reduce reliance on the power grid. They'd be a luxury item, though, more than likely. They are now, for sure.
Germany wouldn't accept france's nukular waste for no reason. I'm sure there's more to this story. And of course you can make people less afraid of nukular energy... by educating them! Just like global warming, ozone, DDT, etc., it's a better story for the media if it's scary, whether it's true or not. I'm disappointed; usually you have more substantive arguments, toshiro.
Germany wouldn't accept france's nukular waste for no reason. I'm sure there's more to this story. And of course you can make people less afraid of nukular energy... by educating them! Just like global warming, ozone, DDT, etc., it's a better story for the media if it's scary, whether it's true or not. I'm disappointed; usually you have more substantive arguments, toshiro.
What the hell. I don't have more 'substantive' arguments because I don't have the nerve to sift through the documents required to produce proof for them (nobody has done so to date in this thread), this is just an internet message board discussion.
As for education of the masses, you have to be kidding me. The world-wide literacy rate is dropping, more people are allowed to have less education overall. It's unlikely that people are getting more educated on average, hence fear of technology (due to lack will increase rather than dwindle.
There is also reason to doubt whether all countries relying on nuclear energy, and/or those who will be relying on them, will be really careful with their own nuclear waste. History has shown that a lot of them are not, and so far, history has also shown that we are doomed to repeat it.
But as said, the really interesting thing when it comes to solar energy are not photovoltaic panels, but solar-thermic power plants. They're not very expensive, rather unobtrusive and pretty efficient. Plus, they don't decay as fast as solar panels. But, and I am repeating myself, the problem is how to transfer the electrical energy from the power plants to the consumers. That is where nuclear power plants and those burning fossil fuels have advantages.
As for education of the masses, you have to be kidding me. The world-wide literacy rate is dropping, more people are allowed to have less education overall. It's unlikely that people are getting more educated on average, hence fear of technology (due to lack will increase rather than dwindle.
There is also reason to doubt whether all countries relying on nuclear energy, and/or those who will be relying on them, will be really careful with their own nuclear waste. History has shown that a lot of them are not, and so far, history has also shown that we are doomed to repeat it.
But as said, the really interesting thing when it comes to solar energy are not photovoltaic panels, but solar-thermic power plants. They're not very expensive, rather unobtrusive and pretty efficient. Plus, they don't decay as fast as solar panels. But, and I am repeating myself, the problem is how to transfer the electrical energy from the power plants to the consumers. That is where nuclear power plants and those burning fossil fuels have advantages.
You're right, neither side here has cited any sources. I'm simply pointing out that all you're saying is that nukular isn't economically viable, while those of us promoting it can point to a few Western European countries who seem to be doing pretty well with it.
For the education argument, I'm not talking about adding an "Alternative Energy 101" class to any school curriculum. I'm pointing to the media's role in praying on people's fears, taking advantage of the increasing collective ignorance you're talking about. Politicians thrive on this, too. The trend could easily be reversed if those in positions of responsibility over the sharing of information (politicians and the media) would stop taking advantage of others in exchange for ratings or votes.
I don't understand what you're saying about transferring electrical energy (and I'll admit ignorance of these solar-thermic plants, but they sound interesting). Once you convert something to electricity, why would there be a difference in whether the power plant was coal, solar, nukular or anything else at that point? I'd imagine the storage and/or transfer of the electricity would be the same. (This is not an argument, this is me asking for clarification. Maybe I'll have an argument later, haha).
For the education argument, I'm not talking about adding an "Alternative Energy 101" class to any school curriculum. I'm pointing to the media's role in praying on people's fears, taking advantage of the increasing collective ignorance you're talking about. Politicians thrive on this, too. The trend could easily be reversed if those in positions of responsibility over the sharing of information (politicians and the media) would stop taking advantage of others in exchange for ratings or votes.
I don't understand what you're saying about transferring electrical energy (and I'll admit ignorance of these solar-thermic plants, but they sound interesting). Once you convert something to electricity, why would there be a difference in whether the power plant was coal, solar, nukular or anything else at that point? I'd imagine the storage and/or transfer of the electricity would be the same. (This is not an argument, this is me asking for clarification. Maybe I'll have an argument later, haha).
Smart energy grid rationale described in very last paragraph. Not a lot of detail available since it hasn't been designed yet.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/where-do-you-stand-on-energy-p-4.html
Regarding nuclear energy, you have to consider the industry in its entirety to evaluate its true costs; from mining the Uranium and Plutonium, to purifying ore and enriching it, to transporting and storing the fuel, to operating the actual reactor and tearing it down afterward, to transporting and disposing of all associated radioactive waste. Then there are imponderables such as the cost to people and the environment if there is a breakdown in safety anywhere along the chain (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl being the most well-known). There are also national security concerns both with possible attacks on nuclear facilities and proliferation issues. I'm not saying nuclear energy should be taken off the table, just that nuclear energy is not the silver bullet it's proponents make it out to be; there are serious issues about its long-term use that need to be addressed before I would endorse it over other alternatives. I will admit that developments in nuclear reactor technology in Europe and Japan are promising though.
And just because I like maps (I didn't know Cuba had a nuclear reactor):
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php
EDIT: Most power production systems (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) all rely on steam; the different fuels are just the means used to heat water and create steam while the actual electricity is generated by steam turbines. Solar-thermal (using sunlight redirected by mirrors) is just another way of boiling water for the same steam turbines.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/where-do-you-stand-on-energy-p-4.html
Regarding nuclear energy, you have to consider the industry in its entirety to evaluate its true costs; from mining the Uranium and Plutonium, to purifying ore and enriching it, to transporting and storing the fuel, to operating the actual reactor and tearing it down afterward, to transporting and disposing of all associated radioactive waste. Then there are imponderables such as the cost to people and the environment if there is a breakdown in safety anywhere along the chain (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl being the most well-known). There are also national security concerns both with possible attacks on nuclear facilities and proliferation issues. I'm not saying nuclear energy should be taken off the table, just that nuclear energy is not the silver bullet it's proponents make it out to be; there are serious issues about its long-term use that need to be addressed before I would endorse it over other alternatives. I will admit that developments in nuclear reactor technology in Europe and Japan are promising though.
And just because I like maps (I didn't know Cuba had a nuclear reactor):
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php
EDIT: Most power production systems (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) all rely on steam; the different fuels are just the means used to heat water and create steam while the actual electricity is generated by steam turbines. Solar-thermal (using sunlight redirected by mirrors) is just another way of boiling water for the same steam turbines.
I can only underline what Daare said, and what he linked to. I have to apologize, though. I was tired and a bit put out yesterday and reacted more snappish than was necessary.
About energy transfer: Unfortunately, you cannot just place the source of electrical energy at an arbitrary distance from the consumer, because you experience (non-negligible) losses. The closer you can put the source to the consumer, the smaller your losses are. But the wikipedia article on energy transfer, especially losses and limitations, should start you off. Power electronics is actually quite interesting, and far from trivial, I hold those who excel in it in high respect. Part of the problem is the high cost, and another part are the dwindling natural resources globally available; those factors will hinder any solution to the world-wide energy problem, as I see it.
Another wikipedia article on solar thermal energy gives you a nice rundown on how it can be used for the generation on electrical energy (lower part of the article). Again, my apologies, this time for only linking to wikipedia articles, but after reading them, I'd say they are not overly biased, and the latter comes with an interesting efficiency and a financial calculation (I cannot comment on the latter, though).
I hope I do not sound patronizing, if I do, it was not my intention, and I'll try and re-phrase my post.
As for education and the medias' (or politicians') role in facilitating the escalation of critical topics, you're of course totally right, I should not have become acidic. I'm just not optimistic enough to believe that the world's population will be able to deal with this, simply because those in positions of responsibility (like you said) are in those positions. So far, not many people in power have easily given up that power.
About energy transfer: Unfortunately, you cannot just place the source of electrical energy at an arbitrary distance from the consumer, because you experience (non-negligible) losses. The closer you can put the source to the consumer, the smaller your losses are. But the wikipedia article on energy transfer, especially losses and limitations, should start you off. Power electronics is actually quite interesting, and far from trivial, I hold those who excel in it in high respect. Part of the problem is the high cost, and another part are the dwindling natural resources globally available; those factors will hinder any solution to the world-wide energy problem, as I see it.
Another wikipedia article on solar thermal energy gives you a nice rundown on how it can be used for the generation on electrical energy (lower part of the article). Again, my apologies, this time for only linking to wikipedia articles, but after reading them, I'd say they are not overly biased, and the latter comes with an interesting efficiency and a financial calculation (I cannot comment on the latter, though).
I hope I do not sound patronizing, if I do, it was not my intention, and I'll try and re-phrase my post.
As for education and the medias' (or politicians') role in facilitating the escalation of critical topics, you're of course totally right, I should not have become acidic. I'm just not optimistic enough to believe that the world's population will be able to deal with this, simply because those in positions of responsibility (like you said) are in those positions. So far, not many people in power have easily given up that power.
One solution is to move the powerhungry industries to where the power is cheap. Which is probably why an aluminium smelter was recently placed in Greenland (of all places..) regardless of the transportation problems. They have abundant hydro power and so it is cost-efficient for the aluminium industri that relies on immense amounts of it. Probably why Norway has a lot of smelters too...
Now...... who would like their large very cost-intensive plants to be near the solar power plants in Sahara? No-one? Thought so. Unfortunately there are no easy solutions (well, sit back and do nothing is one...) but better stability where solar power could be generated is a must.
Popquiz: Which country has the most solar panels per inhabitant in the world? Sunny Spain? Ultra-sunny USA? Jolly Japan?
No, Greyclouded Germany actually since the state subsidised the damned things for over 20 year.... Hooray for state intervention!
And sorry to all Germans for portraying your country as a grey place... I like it a lot:) It is however not the sunniest place on Earth...
Now...... who would like their large very cost-intensive plants to be near the solar power plants in Sahara? No-one? Thought so. Unfortunately there are no easy solutions (well, sit back and do nothing is one...) but better stability where solar power could be generated is a must.
Popquiz: Which country has the most solar panels per inhabitant in the world? Sunny Spain? Ultra-sunny USA? Jolly Japan?
No, Greyclouded Germany actually since the state subsidised the damned things for over 20 year.... Hooray for state intervention!
And sorry to all Germans for portraying your country as a grey place... I like it a lot:) It is however not the sunniest place on Earth...
Just a quick comment, I'll put more thought into a response later:
I was wondering, toshiro, what the difference was in transportation of electrical energy when dealing with nuclear as opposed to other sources of energy. It seemed to me you were using transmission costs as an argument against nuclear, and I don't understand why that would be a different challenge in that case. As Daare pointed out, it's all turbines, however you heat the steam. Maybe I misunderstood your statement.
I didn't think you were patronizing me, by the way; I enjoy discussing issues with you because you keep my wits sharp and you don't resort to ad hominem attacks.
I was wondering, toshiro, what the difference was in transportation of electrical energy when dealing with nuclear as opposed to other sources of energy. It seemed to me you were using transmission costs as an argument against nuclear, and I don't understand why that would be a different challenge in that case. As Daare pointed out, it's all turbines, however you heat the steam. Maybe I misunderstood your statement.
I didn't think you were patronizing me, by the way; I enjoy discussing issues with you because you keep my wits sharp and you don't resort to ad hominem attacks.
Ah. No, as I said (obviously not clearly enough), nuclear energy, like fossil fuel energy, has the advantage of relative independence of location, because the fuel can be transported to where the power plant is. Of course, there is also the problem that many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which may or may not be an unfounded fear (as Daare said, nuclear plants can become the target of a terrorist attack, on the other hand, many nuclear power plants are rather unlikely targets... no evidence here, just a gut feeling).
However, technologic advances do not stop, and I think that, despite the losses during transfer, solar thermic power plants are part of the answer to the energy question. There are conceptual plans of a wholistic (for lack of a better word) approach at supplying Europe, Northern Africa and Western Eurasia with electrical energy from a multitude of sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, fossil). The important thing is that people who know what they're doing go about the job, and not demagogic or overly idealistic politicians, no matter their orientation.
Solar energy, on the other hand, be it thermal or photovoltaic in provenience, is more strongly bound to a location, since not all regions of a continent, or even country, have the same amount of energy they receive from the sun. Spain is fairly well-off, since they have lots of sun-hours (please excuse the prosaic term) in a large part of the country, whereas Switzerland, for instance, only has one, maybe two locations where such a power plant is feasible (mostly in the mountains, which further increases the cost... although they plan to build an oil-fed power plant in the mountains, so go figure...). And that is an argument against them, because distributing the energy poses problems.
Last, but not least, I can return the compliment.
However, technologic advances do not stop, and I think that, despite the losses during transfer, solar thermic power plants are part of the answer to the energy question. There are conceptual plans of a wholistic (for lack of a better word) approach at supplying Europe, Northern Africa and Western Eurasia with electrical energy from a multitude of sources (wind, water, solar, nuclear, fossil). The important thing is that people who know what they're doing go about the job, and not demagogic or overly idealistic politicians, no matter their orientation.
Solar energy, on the other hand, be it thermal or photovoltaic in provenience, is more strongly bound to a location, since not all regions of a continent, or even country, have the same amount of energy they receive from the sun. Spain is fairly well-off, since they have lots of sun-hours (please excuse the prosaic term) in a large part of the country, whereas Switzerland, for instance, only has one, maybe two locations where such a power plant is feasible (mostly in the mountains, which further increases the cost... although they plan to build an oil-fed power plant in the mountains, so go figure...). And that is an argument against them, because distributing the energy poses problems.
Last, but not least, I can return the compliment.
This just in from xkcd:
Alt text: The moment their arms spun freely in our air, they were doomed -- for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane.
Alt text: The moment their arms spun freely in our air, they were doomed -- for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane.
Ron Paul?
The AirPod looks a bit like the shuttle from 2001...
Hahahahaha! There are actual investors for that technology? That's hilarious! So, instead of burning gas to make a car go, we'll burn gas or coal or whatever to compress air, and the air will make the car go. That's certainly more efficient, and will definitely reduce emissions in the long run! I guess you can feel good about yourself since your car is emission-free, since you outsourced your emissions to a power plant somewhere. At least you don't have to worry about keeping it cool, I bet! In fact, I don't think I'd want to drive one in the winter in a humid climate... or anywhere. I wonder how far it can go on one tank?
Now this is what I call a hybrid:
Now this is what I call a hybrid:
Energy density with pressurized air is very good, Chaos. Range shouldn't be that bad. Plus, you can use truly emission-free pressurization systems. Think outside the box.
Why'd they have to use a New Beetle, though? It sucks so bad.
Why'd they have to use a New Beetle, though? It sucks so bad.
"we'll burn gas or coal or whatever to compress air"
I agree it's the problem, but we needs only electricity ...and not nuclear electricity
" and will definitely reduce emissions in the long run! "
I don't think that we have the time
Our civlisation needs anew on a basis other than the wheel
Nice your vidéo Her Professor Chaos
I agree it's the problem, but we needs only electricity ...and not nuclear electricity
" and will definitely reduce emissions in the long run! "
I don't think that we have the time
Our civlisation needs anew on a basis other than the wheel
Nice your vidéo Her Professor Chaos
Tertior, are you from Luxembourg?
Haha, thanks again for the storage space. Apparently it can't go on YouTube, Facebook or MySpace, so whatever.
Our civilization has plenty of time; our history of dealing with the environment has for the most part improved over the centuries. I don't want to start yet another big global warming debate, but it seems pretty clear that solar cycles are the main factor, not CO2, as evidenced by the record we have of solar cycles and the current cooling trend coinciding with lower solar activity this past decade. They've been predicting the imminent downfall of civilization due to fossil fuels for a long time. Remember the big ice age scare in the 70s? I don't because I wasn't around then, but I've read up on it, and it makes me laugh.
Hydrocarbons are not the enemy.
I agree, tosh, sucks that he used a New Beetle instead of something cooler. Looks like MDI is claiming you can go 80km highway with their cars. That's basically worthless for a road trip. And how is a pressurization system going to be emission-free? It's still third-hand energy, with a loss in efficiency each step of the way. I did a quick look on Wikipedia, which points out not only what I said about the engine freezing, but also points out how hot the tank will get if you fill it quickly. I don't want to spend four hours at a fueling station, or count on fueling only while I sleep. I'll drive an electric or hybrid car before one of those pieces of crap.
I'm all for thinking outside the box. Hydrocarbons were outside the box, once. Until something new is truly viable, though, we still have to live in a world where what's in the box is what works.
And there's nothing wrong with nukular.
And nothing will quell my compulsion to nudge an MDI car off the road with my Jeep if I see one. ;)
Our civilization has plenty of time; our history of dealing with the environment has for the most part improved over the centuries. I don't want to start yet another big global warming debate, but it seems pretty clear that solar cycles are the main factor, not CO2, as evidenced by the record we have of solar cycles and the current cooling trend coinciding with lower solar activity this past decade. They've been predicting the imminent downfall of civilization due to fossil fuels for a long time. Remember the big ice age scare in the 70s? I don't because I wasn't around then, but I've read up on it, and it makes me laugh.
Hydrocarbons are not the enemy.
I agree, tosh, sucks that he used a New Beetle instead of something cooler. Looks like MDI is claiming you can go 80km highway with their cars. That's basically worthless for a road trip. And how is a pressurization system going to be emission-free? It's still third-hand energy, with a loss in efficiency each step of the way. I did a quick look on Wikipedia, which points out not only what I said about the engine freezing, but also points out how hot the tank will get if you fill it quickly. I don't want to spend four hours at a fueling station, or count on fueling only while I sleep. I'll drive an electric or hybrid car before one of those pieces of crap.
I'm all for thinking outside the box. Hydrocarbons were outside the box, once. Until something new is truly viable, though, we still have to live in a world where what's in the box is what works.
And there's nothing wrong with nukular.
And nothing will quell my compulsion to nudge an MDI car off the road with my Jeep if I see one. ;)
What's this nukular you speak of?
Sorry Daare, but global warming is not universally accepted by scientists as fact. It is hotly debated with many very intelligent real scientists on both sides.
You're already acquainted with the global warming alarmist case, obviously. In my opinion some of the best counter-arguments come from speeches given by Michael Crichton, some of them in front of Congress. A lot of people forget that he was a scientist and doctor before being an author. He also believed the global warming crisis until he did some real research on it. His speeches are well-informed, persuasive, and entertaining. I recommend giving them a read.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html
You're already acquainted with the global warming alarmist case, obviously. In my opinion some of the best counter-arguments come from speeches given by Michael Crichton, some of them in front of Congress. A lot of people forget that he was a scientist and doctor before being an author. He also believed the global warming crisis until he did some real research on it. His speeches are well-informed, persuasive, and entertaining. I recommend giving them a read.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html