In Sweden I think they use a lot of Biogas (burning animal carcasses) for fuel and energy.sergeriver wrote:
Pig Manure Converted to Crude Oil.
I think in Iceland and Denmark they use pig manure for energy.
One problem: It takes a shitload of energy to start it up. Theres also talk about how it will create too much heat.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Fusion is very much possible. We just haven't thought up any way of extracting power from it. It's not a viable power source, but it could be one day.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Fusion is pretty much, not possible.oug wrote:
Clean nuclear energy. Cleaner anyway...
I have a solution that may be implemented whether we like or not. Consume less.
I think both America and Europe will see a significant fall in standard of living as China and India rise in consumption. It simply will not be affordable for Americans and Europeans to continue living at their current decadent levels as the prices of resources surge with world demand.
Over the next century, the world will level out in standard of living -- where most nations will be Second World with a powerful class of rich elite using most resources.
I think both America and Europe will see a significant fall in standard of living as China and India rise in consumption. It simply will not be affordable for Americans and Europeans to continue living at their current decadent levels as the prices of resources surge with world demand.
Over the next century, the world will level out in standard of living -- where most nations will be Second World with a powerful class of rich elite using most resources.
Heat is good. It's energy. We just need to work out a way of using the vast amounts of power given off by a fusion reaction. They do take a lot of energy to start up, but after that if you have a supply of fuel to be fused, usually hydrogen (or a hydrogen based isotope like deuterium or tritium), then you can produce loads of energy for as long as the reactor can withstand the temperatures. Temperatures which are often hotter than the sun.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
One problem: It takes a shitload of energy to start it up. Theres also talk about how it will create too much heat.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Fusion is very much possible. We just haven't thought up any way of extracting power from it. It's not a viable power source, but it could be one day.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Fusion is pretty much, not possible.
If we could use that heat as energy with moderate efficiency and keep it contained, then fusion power becomes a perfect power source. The fact is we can't. Because no one has any idea how it could be done. It's the sort of thing someone will probably figure out eventually though. I think ruling out fusion power as a future energy source is extremely pessimistic.
Your Welcome, without the Coalition that has been stabilizing/securing the oil supply in the middle east (you know, the one you b*tch about incessantly) your energy prices would be much higher. So if your gonna be part of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crowd you should just STFU about the cost of energy.CameronPoe wrote:
I work in the power industry.
I live in the modern world.
Today in Ireland home-heating natural gas increases in cost by 33.8%. It increased last year too, and the year before, as did the cost of electricity (considerably). The cost of petrol increases exponentially all the time.
Europe is become unbelievably dependent on the corrupt authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin for its energy needs.
This year there is a risk of winter peak time blackouts as a consequence of a lack of generator capacity on the Irish network (partly a problem to do with aging plant and an uncompetitive electricity market but nonethless...). Wind generators, 'good clean' energy, is essentially useless when it comes to meeting power demand during winter - zero wind usually coincides with extreme cold and hence the winter peak. Nuclear energy is a political 'no no' in many countries.
Where on earth are we going to get the power to fuel the future? How can China and India, nations of over a billion people each, hope to grow to have comparable standards of living to us in the west with the energy crisis that confronts all of us today? How can their growth be sustained without destroying our own standards of living?
The issue of finite energy resources is a greater risk, in my opinion, to global stability than any other threat posed by any issue or entity at the present time.
What do you think?
Oh, another intelligent debater.Major_Spittle wrote:
Your Welcome, without the Coalition that has been stabilizing/securing the oil supply in the middle east (you know, the one you b*tch about incessantly) your energy prices would be much higher. So if your gonna be part of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crowd you should just STFU about the cost of energy.CameronPoe wrote:
I work in the power industry.
I live in the modern world.
Today in Ireland home-heating natural gas increases in cost by 33.8%. It increased last year too, and the year before, as did the cost of electricity (considerably). The cost of petrol increases exponentially all the time.
Europe is become unbelievably dependent on the corrupt authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin for its energy needs.
This year there is a risk of winter peak time blackouts as a consequence of a lack of generator capacity on the Irish network (partly a problem to do with aging plant and an uncompetitive electricity market but nonethless...). Wind generators, 'good clean' energy, is essentially useless when it comes to meeting power demand during winter - zero wind usually coincides with extreme cold and hence the winter peak. Nuclear energy is a political 'no no' in many countries.
Where on earth are we going to get the power to fuel the future? How can China and India, nations of over a billion people each, hope to grow to have comparable standards of living to us in the west with the energy crisis that confronts all of us today? How can their growth be sustained without destroying our own standards of living?
The issue of finite energy resources is a greater risk, in my opinion, to global stability than any other threat posed by any issue or entity at the present time.
What do you think?
You are correct when you say that wind turbines can be a sensible part of the electric supply, Im not disputing that. But like Cameron already said, wind power is not a viable source by itself. It always needs backup.Bertster7 wrote:
I you think wind power isn't a plausible answer (other than in terms of cost, where it is not too far behind nuclear power) then you haven't done your sums. A single wind turbine can provide upto 6MW. That's really quite a lot. Germany is the world leader in wind turbine usage, producing more than 19GW using wind turbines. Personal wind turbines producing more than a KW are also a very sensible way of supplementing a households power supply.SpaceApollyon wrote:
An electrical engineers joke to end the rant
If someone thinks that wind power is a plausible answer to electricity problems, then that someone doesn't know the difference between MW and mW
But lets speculate for arguments sake and do some math as you suggested. The biggest wind turbine in the world today produces 6MW at best. The new nuclear reactor in Finland produces 1600MW steadily. 1600 / 6 = 267.
There is no way we could find a place to build 267, 30 m tall wind turbines, the sound they create and the aesthetic concerns make it impossible to find space for the project. So its not a plausible solution, at least here in Finland. Cudos for Germany though, for the 19GW. With average 500kW - 2000kW / power-plant, thats a lot of wind turbines!
Last edited by SpaceApollyon (2006-11-23 10:40:01)
I disagree. The stability of oil distribution from the Middle East mostly serves the interests of the corporations that extract the oil, and of the aristocratic regimes in the region that are friendly to American or European interests but oppressive of their people (which leads partially to terrorism).Major_Spittle wrote:
Your Welcome, without the Coalition that has been stabilizing/securing the oil supply in the middle east (you know, the one you b*tch about incessantly) your energy prices would be much higher. So if your gonna be part of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" crowd you should just STFU about the cost of energy.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-23 10:38:41)
I remember doing the working out for how big an area the UK would have to use to generate all it's power using wind turbines. You would need an area of just under 90x90 miles (or rather correcting someone elses calculations, they'd forgotten to take the hours in TWh out, meaning they were out by a lot). Which is quite big. Especially in a small country like Britain. Other, bigger countries with less dense populations (so most other places really) should be able to use wind power as a solution that is only slightly more expensive than a nuclear alternative. It really all depends how much land to population you have. In Canada for example, I reckon wind farms would be a perfectly sensible mainstream energy source, since they have shitloads of space and not very high power demands.SpaceApollyon wrote:
You are correct when you say that wind turbines can be a sensible part of the electric supply, Im not disputing that. But like Cameron already said, wind power is not a viable source by itself. It always needs backup.Bertster7 wrote:
I you think wind power isn't a plausible answer (other than in terms of cost, where it is not too far behind nuclear power) then you haven't done your sums. A single wind turbine can provide upto 6MW. That's really quite a lot. Germany is the world leader in wind turbine usage, producing more than 19GW using wind turbines. Personal wind turbines producing more than a KW are also a very sensible way of supplementing a households power supply.SpaceApollyon wrote:
An electrical engineers joke to end the rant
If someone thinks that wind power is a plausible answer to electricity problems, then that someone doesn't know the difference between MW and mW
But lets speculate for arguments sake and do some math as you suggested. The biggest wind turbine in the world today produces 6MW at best. The new nuclear reactor in Finland produces 1600MW steadily. 1600 / 6 = 267.
There is no way we could find a place to build 267, 30 m tall wind turbines, the sound they create and the aesthetic concerns make it impossible to find space for the project. So its not a plausible solution, at least here in Finland. Cudos for Germany though, for the 19GW. With average 500kW - 2000kW / power-plant, thats a lot of wind turbines!
In Britain and other small nations, nuclear power is the only sensible option.
But we do have shitloads of space, and still we cant find space for them. People dont want them near their homes, people dont want them at places where they hunt, sail, etc! Thats just about everywhere. And that wasnt the only problem with wind power.
Last edited by SpaceApollyon (2006-11-23 10:55:18)
You don't have that much space. Only 130,558 sq mi, that's only marginally bigger than the UK. Compare that to Canada, which was my initial example, which has 3,854,085 sq mi and a population only half that of the UK and you begin to get an idea of the sort of countries I'm talking about.SpaceApollyon wrote:
But we do have shitloads of space, and still we cant find space for them. People dont want them near their homes, people dont want them at places where they hunt, sail, etc! Thats just about everywhere. And that wasnt the only problem with wind power.
There are loads of place you can put wind turbines that people won't complain about. Near airports, near motorways and near nothing.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-23 11:00:55)
Pop per km²
Canada 3.2
Finland 15.5
UK 246
Canada 3.2
Finland 15.5
UK 246
That's why all the major UK wind farms are offshore. There's more wind there too. The UK has a total of 90 offshore wind turbines producing 210MW.SpaceApollyon wrote:
Pop per km²
Canada 3.2
Finland 15.5
UK 246
my family switched to a woodburning stove in our fireplace, saves a ton.
behold the powers of civil engineering at its finestCameronPoe wrote:
Where on earth are we going to get the power to fuel the future? How can China and India, nations of over a billion people each, hope to grow to have comparable standards of living to us in the west with the energy crisis that confronts all of us today? How can their growth be sustained without destroying our own standards of living?
The issue of finite energy resources is a greater risk, in my opinion, to global stability than any other threat posed by any issue or entity at the present time.
What do you think?
HYDROELECTRIC!
"Electricity production
The amount of power generated by the dam in 2009 was originally anticipated to supply about 10% of China's electricity needs, but with China's rapidly growing economy it is only projected to produce approximately 3% at the end of 2006[4]. In fact, the dam is predicted to produce 18,200 MW of electrical power. According to a recent Discovery Channel special on the Three Gorges Dam, it will supply enough electricity to power a city four times larger than Los Angeles. That is a lot of energy, but, considering China's population and already immense cities, it will simply be a drop in the bucket--not considering the fact that energy demand will increase with all of the new, modern relocation cities and development from the new shipping capabilities and industry. Over 80% of the country's power is currently produced by coal.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorg … production
Last edited by T0rr3nt (2006-11-23 11:43:08)
The Finnish archipelago has also been suggested, but it has always been rejected on aesthetic grounds. We have about 100MW windpower though - its about 0.1% of our usage - and we are increasing it all the time. It is a sensible way to contribute to the need, but not the answer to the problem.Bertster7 wrote:
That's why all the major UK wind farms are offshore. There's more wind there too. The UK has a total of 90 offshore wind turbines producing 210MW.
Even if it is technologically possible to produce all of our electricity from wind, its not practical. People dont want windparks near them. They complain about the ones that have already been built. There would have to be reserves. The system would be extremely hard to design and make. The maintenance of those parks would be a bitch here above the 60th N. These are the reasons why I think that wind power is not a plausible solution for the problem.
The UK aim to have 5% of energy generated by wind farms (6GW) by 2010, which is in no way unfeasible if you consider the fact that in a single year the Germans built 16.6GW worth of turbines. It's been shown it can be done, for only slightly more money than nuclear power, with no conventional fuel and no horrible waste product. It will never be a complete solution, but wind power to supplement existing power sources is a good idea. If the UK can meet 20-25% of it's energy requirements (which is not unrealistic) through wind power, that is a very good thing.SpaceApollyon wrote:
The Finnish archipelago has also been suggested, but it has always been rejected on aesthetic grounds. We have about 100MW windpower though - its about 0.1% of our usage - and we are increasing it all the time. It is a sensible way to contribute to the need, but not the answer to the problem.Bertster7 wrote:
That's why all the major UK wind farms are offshore. There's more wind there too. The UK has a total of 90 offshore wind turbines producing 210MW.
Even if it is technologically possible to produce all of our electricity from wind, its not practical. People dont want windparks near them. They complain about the ones that have already been built. There would have to be reserves. The system would be extremely hard to design and make. The maintenance of those parks would be a bitch here above the 60th N. These are the reasons why I think that wind power is not a plausible solution for the problem.
I reckon the overall best would be something like 60% nuclear, 25% wind, 5% tidal, 10% fossil fuels.
Thats all well and true, but the practical hurdles I just posted are still there. Thousands and thousands of wind turbines need to be built, maintained and the structure of the the grid must be redesigned for that kind of unreliable alternating power source.Bertster7 wrote:
The UK aim to have 5% of energy generated by wind farms (6GW) by 2010, which is in no way unfeasible if you consider the fact that in a single year the Germans built 16.6GW worth of turbines. It's been shown it can be done, for only slightly more money than nuclear power, with no conventional fuel and no horrible waste product. It will never be a complete solution, but wind power to supplement existing power sources is a good idea. If the UK can meet 20-25% of it's energy requirements (which is not unrealistic) through wind power, that is a very good thing.SpaceApollyon wrote:
The Finnish archipelago has also been suggested, but it has always been rejected on aesthetic grounds. We have about 100MW windpower though - its about 0.1% of our usage - and we are increasing it all the time. It is a sensible way to contribute to the need, but not the answer to the problem.
Even if it is technologically possible to produce all of our electricity from wind, its not practical. People dont want windparks near them. They complain about the ones that have already been built. There would have to be reserves. The system would be extremely hard to design and make. The maintenance of those parks would be a bitch here above the 60th N. These are the reasons why I think that wind power is not a plausible solution for the problem.
I reckon the overall best would be something like 60% nuclear, 25% wind, 5% tidal, 10% fossil fuels.
Until we get the Unified Field Theory....
Anti-grav means FREE energy.
Anti-grav means FREE energy.