BF2S Forums How to stop stuff like the Gulf oil spill from happening: ...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.

Whether you get your ideas from Sim City or what, you can't just plop down wind and solar farms all over the place and get reliable constant power out of them. It doesn't work. Your own system is forced to use the grid as a backup plan. You may make money off of the setup but I guarantee it's because you aren't home during the day during your peak generating times. At night you are forced to use power from the grid (which in your case is nuclear power *cough*).

Which is exactly what I was saying, you just said it from a technical, engineer's point of view

This is about as dumbed down as I can make it

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

My power COULD come from Indian Point. Does it matter? The closer I live, the less right I have to say I would rather see a push towards solar/wind, over nuclear? Seriously, you lack in your posting for someone who is intelligent. Please follow your sig.

I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.

Whether you get your ideas from Sim City or what, you can't just plop down wind and solar farms all over the place and get reliable constant power out of them. It doesn't work. Your own system is forced to use the grid as a backup plan. You may make money off of the setup but I guarantee it's because you aren't home during the day during your peak generating times. At night you are forced to use power from the grid (which in your case is nuclear power *cough*).

Mekstizzle wrote:

So anyway the media over here are basically laughing at the Americans who insist on calling BP "British Petroleum" despite the fact that it's not called that anymore and BP doesn't even stand for that anymore, and that the company is more American than British, and that nobody talks about Transocean and Haliburton.

Yet Obama and such insist on the fact that it's a foreign company and all that and he's trying as hard as he can to absolve any blame on behalf of Americans, what a chump but that's how the US works. Nationalism is easy and fuck

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-13 05:08:43)

Spark wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

I don't need an elecrical engineering degree to know that there are clean ways to get energy. Geo-thermal, solar, hydro, wind are all viable sources that could be tapped at a higher rate then we do now. I also don't need an electrical engineering degree to know that nuclear has the "POTENTIAL" to be catastrophic. I can't really "argue" with you untill you actually make a point.

I don't need a degree in electrical engineering either that are all way, way, way short of our needs. And what you are doing is appealing to the literal, full application of the precautionary principle which if you take it to its logical completion is utterly stupid.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.

There are plenty of ways of storing energy, hydro-storage being one, batteries would be about the last choice.

Let me know when you get your degree in electrical engineering. Then you can argue with me.

If you're going to be snippy I should point out that power generation is the domain of the mechanical engineer, steam-turbines, heat-exchangers, gas turbines, nuclear reactors, wind turbines etc.

Granted its the job of the electrical engineer to convert all that power to electricity, but fundamental power generation is not something you're qualified to comment on, even if you have your degree yet

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.

There are plenty of ways of storing energy, hydro-storage being one, batteries would be about the last choice.

If you're going to be snippy I should point out that power generation is the domain of the mechanical engineer, steam-turbines, heat-exchangers, gas turbines, nuclear reactors, wind turbines etc.

Granted its the job of the electrical engineer to convert all that power to electricity, but fundamental power generation is not something you're qualified to comment on, even if you have your degree yet

Actually, power generation IS a EE discipline. Manufacture of the components may fall to the mechanical engineer, but the design of the power generation system is all EE, Dilbert.

But ultimately, most university courses in either overlap a great deal.

My degree was in Computer Engineering - still did a heck of a lot of the courses on exactly this sort of thing alongside the mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, power generation IS a EE discipline. Manufacture of the components may fall to the mechanical engineer, but the design of the power generation system is all EE, Dilbert.

But ultimately, most university courses in either overlap a great deal.

My degree was in Computer Engineering - still did a heck of a lot of the courses on exactly this sort of thing alongside the mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers.

EE with Computer Engineering =/= EE with Power Engineering. When I got my EE degree, you had to choose which track you would go down, power or computer. Two totally different sets of courses.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-13 08:46:16)

nlsme1 wrote:

That is an excuse to build more nuclear? Something potentially more dangerous. I would rather see dams retrofitted. I would rather see Natural Gas play a larger role. Even geothermal. All of these are constant, and can be turned on or off to deal with the flunctuations in demand. I would like to see more incentive from the government into clean energy. Nuclear is not "clean". It is "clean" until it fucks up.

FEOS wrote:

Actually, power generation IS a EE discipline. Manufacture of the components may fall to the mechanical engineer, but the design of the power generation system is all EE, Dilbert.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-13 16:56:48)