Pages: 1 2

 

2010-11-28 06:10:09
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6776|so randum

DrunkFace wrote:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.
It costs a metric asstonne to build, and iirc requires a lot of maintainence on the panels to keep them working. wind turbines are pretty straight forward compared to.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-11-28 06:43:40
Brasso
member
+1,549|6906

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nuclear is currently our best bet, but yeah, wind has a lot of long term potential.
Mostly because of the considerable lower overhead. I wouldn't call wind energy a job creator though.
This is true.   The most appealing part of wind energy is the lack of any major waste or negative impact on the environment.

A few dead birds is much better than producing hazardous waste that takes centuries to degrade.
lol even a million dead birds wouldn't amount to the amount killed by hydrocarbon emissions, which is essentially what wind power would be replacing.  acid rain is bad mmkay?


DrunkFace wrote:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.
solar energy has no industrial capabilities at all.  that's hardly solving "the world's power needs overnight."  furthermore solar panels are incredibly inefficient.  the amount of land needed to produce enough power by solar panels alone is something like the amount of agricultural land we're using at this moment, although i might have my stats wrong (fuck me).  regardless, google "solar highway" if you haven't heard of it already.  really good shit there.

tl;dr - solar energy is only viable as a supplement and not a complete replacement.

Last edited by Brasso (2010-11-28 06:48:09)

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
2010-11-28 06:44:47
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5513|Cleveland, Ohio
ill take a wind turbine in my backyard pls
2010-11-28 06:51:12
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6799|...

"could" "20%" "2030" .... ffs it takes that long really
2010-11-28 06:53:19
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6951|Canberra, AUS

Brasso wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:


Mostly because of the considerable lower overhead. I wouldn't call wind energy a job creator though.
This is true.   The most appealing part of wind energy is the lack of any major waste or negative impact on the environment.

A few dead birds is much better than producing hazardous waste that takes centuries to degrade.
lol even a million dead birds wouldn't amount to the amount killed by hydrocarbon emissions, which is essentially what wind power would be replacing.  acid rain is bad mmkay?


DrunkFace wrote:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.
solar energy has no industrial capabilities at all.  that's hardly solving "the world's power needs overnight."  furthermore solar panels are incredibly inefficient.  the amount of land needed to produce enough power by solar panels alone is something like the amount of agricultural land we're using at this moment, although i might have my stats wrong (fuck me).  regardless, google "solar highway" if you haven't heard of it already.  really good shit there.

tl;dr - solar energy is only viable as a supplement and not a complete replacement.
this x1000

solar power is probably the most overrated alternative power source of them all
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-11-28 06:55:34
Karbin
Member
+42|6571

11 Bravo wrote:

ill take a wind turbine in my backyard pls
Might want to look up Wind Turbine Syndrome first.

2010-11-28 07:13:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.
Long term it is not. Getting over the initial investment hurdle is the biggest challenge. That is why I am encouraged when I see major private sector investments like this. For them it is about profits, so you know they are doing feasibility studies to determine the (economic) sustainability of the project. The government rarely considers this, for they only care about immediate votes. We've got plenty of coastline that is ripe for the picking. I think we need a comprehensive approach that includes solar, nuclear, and wind. Different scenarios may require a different fit, locally.
Why? Just go all nuke, save a bunch of space and money and you don't have to worry about replacing it every twenty years. Wind and solar are suckers bets, sorry.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-11-28 07:17:45
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

Morpheus wrote:

Don't solar panels also have longevity issues?
Where the need to replace them just about cancels out benefits of having them? At least for home use....
Yes, they need to be replaced, at minimum, every twenty years. Even with subsidies, they end up costing the homeowner more than they would spend buying power from the power company.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-11-28 07:23:35
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6951|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.
Long term it is not. Getting over the initial investment hurdle is the biggest challenge. That is why I am encouraged when I see major private sector investments like this. For them it is about profits, so you know they are doing feasibility studies to determine the (economic) sustainability of the project. The government rarely considers this, for they only care about immediate votes. We've got plenty of coastline that is ripe for the picking. I think we need a comprehensive approach that includes solar, nuclear, and wind. Different scenarios may require a different fit, locally.
Why? Just go all nuke, save a bunch of space and money and you don't have to worry about replacing it every twenty years. Wind and solar are suckers bets, sorry.
Agreed. Some of the liquid thorium reactors currently in the works are top-notch too. Minimal waste and no risk of weapons.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-11-28 07:28:18
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:


Long term it is not. Getting over the initial investment hurdle is the biggest challenge. That is why I am encouraged when I see major private sector investments like this. For them it is about profits, so you know they are doing feasibility studies to determine the (economic) sustainability of the project. The government rarely considers this, for they only care about immediate votes. We've got plenty of coastline that is ripe for the picking. I think we need a comprehensive approach that includes solar, nuclear, and wind. Different scenarios may require a different fit, locally.
Why? Just go all nuke, save a bunch of space and money and you don't have to worry about replacing it every twenty years. Wind and solar are suckers bets, sorry.
Agreed. Some of the liquid thorium reactors currently in the works are top-notch too. Minimal waste and no risk of weapons.
6000 megawatts of power from a line of turbines stretching 350 miles.

Indian Point Energy Center in upstate New York provides 2000 megawatts of power and takes up approximately two square miles of space. Which is more efficient and cost effective? Hmm...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-11-28 10:30:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6877|132 and Bush

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.
Long term it is not. Getting over the initial investment hurdle is the biggest challenge. That is why I am encouraged when I see major private sector investments like this. For them it is about profits, so you know they are doing feasibility studies to determine the (economic) sustainability of the project. The government rarely considers this, for they only care about immediate votes. We've got plenty of coastline that is ripe for the picking. I think we need a comprehensive approach that includes solar, nuclear, and wind. Different scenarios may require a different fit, locally.
Why? Just go all nuke, save a bunch of space and money and you don't have to worry about replacing it every twenty years. Wind and solar are suckers bets, sorry.
Because, once again it puts all of our eggs in one basket. Not excactly the ideal situation in a free market. In the event of a massive failure you are going to want alternatives. I've already learned the lesson of giving complete control to one energy sector. To do so again would make me a sucker.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-11-28 10:58:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6877|132 and Bush

JohnG@lt wrote:

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why? Just go all nuke, save a bunch of space and money and you don't have to worry about replacing it every twenty years. Wind and solar are suckers bets, sorry.
Agreed. Some of the liquid thorium reactors currently in the works are top-notch too. Minimal waste and no risk of weapons.
6000 megawatts of power from a line of turbines stretching 350 miles.

Indian Point Energy Center in upstate New York provides 2000 megawatts of power and takes up approximately two square miles of space. Which is more efficient and cost effective? Hmm...
You're ignoring the overhead.
Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital,  general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.

However, the nuclear cost doesn't incorporate major expenses including waste disposal, massive insurance premiums and decommissioning of nuclear plants when they reach the end of their serviceable life. With these extra issues, nuclear power generated electricity simply becomes unaffordable according to Brown. On the issue of nuclear waste storage, Brown uses the example of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in the USA where he estimates the cost for the actual storage, not including transport, is just under USD $1 billion per reactor.

Just a couple of years ago, the cost to construct a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant was between $2 - 4 billion. As of this year, the figure has skyrocketed to over $7 billion. Uranium costs have increased six-fold since the beginning of this decade.

Once a wind turbine is up and running it will have generated as much clean energy after six months as "dirty" energy used in its manufacture. It takes about seven years for a nuclear power station to generate more carbon dioxide-free electricity than was spent building the plant and getting it operational.

Over the lifetime of a wind turbine, it will generate 17-39 times the amount of energy as was used to build it. Nuclear power plants produce only about 16 times the energy used to build them.
Again, this isn't to say I'm against nuclear as part of the plan.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-11-28 11:09:05
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6190|...

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
...
2010-11-28 12:57:39
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6275|Vortex Ring State

tuckergustav wrote:

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
were they old style or new style?

cause old style (the ones that look like propellors on the top of a antenna) has much higher corrosion potential than new style
2010-11-28 12:59:31
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6190|...

Trotskygrad wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
were they old style or new style?

cause old style (the ones that look like propellors on the top of a antenna) has much higher corrosion potential than new style
old style...what do the new ones look like if not a propeller on the top of an antenna?
...
2010-11-28 13:06:02
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6275|Vortex Ring State

tuckergustav wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
were they old style or new style?

cause old style (the ones that look like propellors on the top of a antenna) has much higher corrosion potential than new style
old style...what do the new ones look like if not a propeller on the top of an antenna?
photo tiem

old style

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Windkraftanlage_Laasow.jpg/404px-Windkraftanlage_Laasow.jpg

new style

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Turbine_aalborg.jpg/396px-Turbine_aalborg.jpg
2010-11-28 13:06:39
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6190|...

oh...they were new then...
...
2010-11-28 13:30:10
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5513|Cleveland, Ohio

tuckergustav wrote:

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
big island of hawaii right?

our training area was there in the lava fields and they were all around us.  was pretty cool to lay there and look up at those blades as the swoop past your face.  but ya they were rusty back then and that was 1998.
2010-11-28 13:30:29
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Yes they were turned off because of their old design. They are going to retrofit some of the old towers.  http://hawaii-kau.com/catalog/products. … _Wind_Farm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-11-28 13:34:19
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6190|...

11 Bravo wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

When we visited the south point of the Big Island, there were several broke down wind turbines.  We talked to a guy that lived nearby and he said that the salt water caused the parts to erode quickly so they were abandoned(which is too bad because it was windy as hell).  This was a fews years back. I wonder if that particular issue has been worked out, or else it doesn't seem practical to put them in the ocean.  Then you have repairs and replacement costs to factor in. 

so, yeah...discuss.
big island of hawaii right?

our training area was there in the lava fields and they were all around us.  was pretty cool to lay there and look up at those blades as the swoop past your face.  but ya they were rusty back then and that was 1998.
yeah, just off the road leading to the south point.  It was kinda sad to see them all broke down...'06 I think it was when we were there.  Glad to see they are fixing them finally.
...

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard