You mean sand?Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations
Fuck Israel
He/I mean things like Cadmium - a very nasty substance (although its usage is fairly - no, very - rare in PV manufacture).Dilbert_X wrote:
You mean sand?Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations
Will do the materials thing now
Last edited by Spark (2008-10-08 06:45:18)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You forgot one
Fusion
I recently saw a program about the new race to the moon. the reason to go back to the moon is to mine Helium 3 which makes running a fusion reactor feasible. Apparently there isn't any helium 3 on earth but the moon has lots so china and the US are supposed to be in a race to set up bases on the moon for mining operations.
I suspect that there will be a large push for nuclear reactors and one reason for this is to get the infrastruture in place so that when the time comes the helium 3 fusion reactors will be built along side these nuclear plants.
Anyway you might want to look into that one.... I think it was BBC Horizon that had a program on the helium 3 and the moon race.
Fusion
I recently saw a program about the new race to the moon. the reason to go back to the moon is to mine Helium 3 which makes running a fusion reactor feasible. Apparently there isn't any helium 3 on earth but the moon has lots so china and the US are supposed to be in a race to set up bases on the moon for mining operations.
I suspect that there will be a large push for nuclear reactors and one reason for this is to get the infrastruture in place so that when the time comes the helium 3 fusion reactors will be built along side these nuclear plants.
Anyway you might want to look into that one.... I think it was BBC Horizon that had a program on the helium 3 and the moon race.
Actually, I'm talking about both. Comparing the new technologies against the old, as well as comparing the new technologies against each other. Initially, the former is more critical than the latter to truly justify the investment. Afterward, the latter is more important to ensure you are investing in the most ecologically sound option, should the new technology win out in the first round.Spark wrote:
Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations and is quite industry-intensive in the extraction of said materials, versus wind - which really is just big aluminium blades stuck to a gearbox + generator (the HAWT version at least)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
An Energy and alternative fuel thread by a guy named Spark...
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7817 … antyf3.jpg
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7817 … antyf3.jpg
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Spark could you PM me your resources, would prove handy for my uni course
Danke!
Danke!
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I liekz teh kabooms.Im_Dooomed wrote:
An Energy and alternative fuel thread by a guy named Spark...
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7817 … antyf3.jpg
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The one problem with doing such an analysis is that a lot of the carbon emissions in the lifecycle of many renewables comes from electricity production... i.e. from coal, which makes it somewhat self-defeating but also means that you aren't really accurately analysing the pro's and con's of said option.FEOS wrote:
Actually, I'm talking about both. Comparing the new technologies against the old, as well as comparing the new technologies against each other. Initially, the former is more critical than the latter to truly justify the investment. Afterward, the latter is more important to ensure you are investing in the most ecologically sound option, should the new technology win out in the first round.Spark wrote:
Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations and is quite industry-intensive in the extraction of said materials, versus wind - which really is just big aluminium blades stuck to a gearbox + generator (the HAWT version at least)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
How is that a problem? It's an accurate portrayal of the overall environmental impact of going with a particular course of action. You can't simply discount it.Spark wrote:
The one problem with doing such an analysis is that a lot of the carbon emissions in the lifecycle of many renewables comes from electricity production... i.e. from coal, which makes it somewhat self-defeating but also means that you aren't really accurately analysing the pro's and con's of said option.FEOS wrote:
Actually, I'm talking about both. Comparing the new technologies against the old, as well as comparing the new technologies against each other. Initially, the former is more critical than the latter to truly justify the investment. Afterward, the latter is more important to ensure you are investing in the most ecologically sound option, should the new technology win out in the first round.Spark wrote:
Of course, but FEOS is talking about the renewable sources vs. each other - i.e. solar, which needs very specialized materials only available in certain locations and is quite industry-intensive in the extraction of said materials, versus wind - which really is just big aluminium blades stuck to a gearbox + generator (the HAWT version at least)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Because it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It's dependent on a completely different external factor which may or may not be present - what if it were produced with nuclear? That would also have to be taken into account. The fact that electricity is currently produced by coal should not be - indirectly - a reason against renewable energies, whose purpose is to replace coal.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
But if the technology were viable, it would show (in the overall analysis) a decrease in coal requirements and resultant pollutants. It's no different than a ROI analysis in that regard.Spark wrote:
Because it has nothing to do with the technology itself. It's dependent on a completely different external factor which may or may not be present - what if it were produced with nuclear? That would also have to be taken into account. The fact that electricity is currently produced by coal should not be - indirectly - a reason against renewable energies, whose purpose is to replace coal.
And it has everything to do with the technology itself. It shows which technologies provide the biggest payoff over time.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It is much to hard to predict the future in that fashion. You can say what happens if a certain path out of a selection... that doesn't get you far along predicting which path will be taken. That is a political question (which I would rather not tackle here) and such questions have proven resistant to analysis.
IF the technology IS viable, then when analysing the total lifecycle carbon emissions then you should assume that across the board, the energy is produced with the most efficient - i.e. most carbon-neutral. Else, if you take into account that coal - the thing you're trying to replace - is producing the energy to make it, then you are doing an analysis of coal as you are of the technology.
Now, it should be taken into account how much energy is needed to manufacture a certain technology, of course. But you shouldn't equate that into carbon emissions because it skews your analysis.
IF the technology IS viable, then when analysing the total lifecycle carbon emissions then you should assume that across the board, the energy is produced with the most efficient - i.e. most carbon-neutral. Else, if you take into account that coal - the thing you're trying to replace - is producing the energy to make it, then you are doing an analysis of coal as you are of the technology.
Now, it should be taken into account how much energy is needed to manufacture a certain technology, of course. But you shouldn't equate that into carbon emissions because it skews your analysis.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Analysis of technological solutions is politics-neutral. You're looking at data and determining the efficacy of a given proposal. The only reason it's "resistant to analysis" is because people think it's too hard. It's not. It's not resistant to analysis. I had to do the analysis as an undergraduate in energy conversion class.Spark wrote:
It is much to hard to predict the future in that fashion. You can say what happens if a certain path out of a selection... that doesn't get you far along predicting which path will be taken. That is a political question (which I would rather not tackle here) and such questions have proven resistant to analysis.
And the information on coal is there, so the analysis is not that difficult. You could then show that, as you field this new technology and the demand for coal drops, there is a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions. And as you use the cleaner technology to ramp up production, the reduction in carbon emissions drops even faster. But carbon is just one piece of it. What do you do if the byproduct of production of the supposedly "clean" technology is toxic sludge that destroys swaths of an ecosystem?Spark wrote:
IF the technology IS viable, then when analysing the total lifecycle carbon emissions then you should assume that across the board, the energy is produced with the most efficient - i.e. most carbon-neutral. Else, if you take into account that coal - the thing you're trying to replace - is producing the energy to make it, then you are doing an analysis of coal as you are of the technology.
That's why I think the focus on carbon alone is a waste. There are other pollutants that must be taken into account.
Actually, excluding the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing the new technology skews your analysis...it makes it appear cleaner than it really is. In some cases, if you ignore the ecological implications of manufacturing of apparently "green" technology, you end up in an ecological "hole" that is real, but wasn't reflected in your analysis.Spark wrote:
Now, it should be taken into account how much energy is needed to manufacture a certain technology, of course. But you shouldn't equate that into carbon emissions because it skews your analysis.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You've misread me somewhat. I was talking about an analysis of future possibilities based on the likeliness of certain political decisions being made - for example, what if the next president decides to invest 500 billion in geothermal? How would that alter the equation? Scenarios like that are so numerous and so difficult to choose between that analysis into the future becomes near-impossible.FEOS wrote:
Analysis of technological solutions is politics-neutral. You're looking at data and determining the efficacy of a given proposal. The only reason it's "resistant to analysis" is because people think it's too hard. It's not. It's not resistant to analysis. I had to do the analysis as an undergraduate in energy conversion class.Spark wrote:
It is much to hard to predict the future in that fashion. You can say what happens if a certain path out of a selection... that doesn't get you far along predicting which path will be taken. That is a political question (which I would rather not tackle here) and such questions have proven resistant to analysis.
Of course. But carbon is the most obvious, so I'm using that as an example in this line of thought.And the information on coal is there, so the analysis is not that difficult. You could then show that, as you field this new technology and the demand for coal drops, there is a corresponding reduction in carbon emissions. And as you use the cleaner technology to ramp up production, the reduction in carbon emissions drops even faster. But carbon is just one piece of it. What do you do if the byproduct of production of the supposedly "clean" technology is toxic sludge that destroys swaths of an ecosystem?Spark wrote:
IF the technology IS viable, then when analysing the total lifecycle carbon emissions then you should assume that across the board, the energy is produced with the most efficient - i.e. most carbon-neutral. Else, if you take into account that coal - the thing you're trying to replace - is producing the energy to make it, then you are doing an analysis of coal as you are of the technology.
That's why I think the focus on carbon alone is a waste. There are other pollutants that must be taken into account.
I agree. But the difficulties arise when you try to quantatize such aspects when highly variable factors come into play, such as what country it was manufactured in, or where the power came from. What do you assume? How do you include energy generation in the equation given the variability of the sources?Actually, excluding the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing the new technology skews your analysis...it makes it appear cleaner than it really is. In some cases, if you ignore the ecological implications of manufacturing of apparently "green" technology, you end up in an ecological "hole" that is real, but wasn't reflected in your analysis.Spark wrote:
Now, it should be taken into account how much energy is needed to manufacture a certain technology, of course. But you shouldn't equate that into carbon emissions because it skews your analysis.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Here are the developments for solar technology in producing it cheaper and higher quality. Can be used to take wasteful heat as well.
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?ni … 0&pg=1
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?ni … 0&pg=1
I'm talking about doing the analysis to drive the investment. Why else would you determine which one is the best to go with?Spark wrote:
You've misread me somewhat. I was talking about an analysis of future possibilities based on the likeliness of certain political decisions being made - for example, what if the next president decides to invest 500 billion in geothermal? How would that alter the equation? Scenarios like that are so numerous and so difficult to choose between that analysis into the future becomes near-impossible.
And for a single line of thought, it's fine. I'm referring to the bigger picture one needs to come up with viable alternatives.Spark wrote:
Of course. But carbon is the most obvious, so I'm using that as an example in this line of thought.
The big assumption would be that the technology would be manufactured in the US (or whatever country one happens to be from). Then you do comparisons between the types of power used in various regions. Clearly, if you can ensure that only nuclear or wing power is used in the manufacture, you have a faster "ecological payoff" than with coal-fire plants.Spark wrote:
I agree. But the difficulties arise when you try to quantatize such aspects when highly variable factors come into play, such as what country it was manufactured in, or where the power came from. What do you assume? How do you include energy generation in the equation given the variability of the sources?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
For once FEOS is right, you need to calculate the total cost and power output over the lifetime of the system, and net C02 output.
Its hard to get people to do this when politics runs in ~4 year cycles, corporate cycles even less.
I haven't looked at the figures, but I reckon if fusion could be made to work it would be the way to go.
Then we'll just breed even faster and overpopulate the planet even quicker.
Its hard to get people to do this when politics runs in ~4 year cycles, corporate cycles even less.
I haven't looked at the figures, but I reckon if fusion could be made to work it would be the way to go.
Then we'll just breed even faster and overpopulate the planet even quicker.
Fuck Israel
It's been far more than once...but I'll give you karma anyway. Not even anonymous or anything.Dilbert_X wrote:
For once FEOS is right, you need to calculate the total cost and power output over the lifetime of the system, and net C02 output.
Its hard to get people to do this when politics runs in ~4 year cycles, corporate cycles even less.
I haven't looked at the figures, but I reckon if fusion could be made to work it would be the way to go.
Then we'll just breed even faster and overpopulate the planet even quicker.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-10-12 06:08:08)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wow that must be twice then.
I don't plan to make a habit of it
I don't plan to make a habit of it
Fuck Israel
Fusion is decades away, and I mean decades. There are enormous problems to a fusion reactor even working, let alone being feasibleDilbert_X wrote:
For once FEOS is right, you need to calculate the total cost and power output over the lifetime of the system, and net C02 output.
Its hard to get people to do this when politics runs in ~4 year cycles, corporate cycles even less.
I haven't looked at the figures, but I reckon if fusion could be made to work it would be the way to go.
Then we'll just breed even faster and overpopulate the planet even quicker.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Fusion may never work, if it could probably it is decades away.
However if Americans can put a man on the moon I think we can have a crack at fusion power.
However if Americans can put a man on the moon I think we can have a crack at fusion power.
Fuck Israel
Yes, but in the meantime we need something else.
Geothermal/Wind is probably the best of the options for me.
Geothermal/Wind is probably the best of the options for me.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Probably, cutting energy gives by far the biggest hit in the short term.
Fuck Israel
Ausra switches on new solar power plant in San Luis Obispo
By Matt Nauman | San Luis Obispo
By Matt Nauman | San Luis Obispo
SAN JOSE — California's first new solar-thermal power plant in nearly 20 years went into operation Thursday morning near Bakersfield — a precursor to a much larger plant planned for San Luis Obispo County.
Constructed by Ausra, based in Palo Alto, the Kimberlina plant in Kern County will generate five megawatts of electricity, enough for about 3,500 homes.
While the amount of power is small, the plant's opening is significant, said Bob Fishman, Ausra's president, chairman and chief executive officer.
Ausra's demonstration project is to be the foundation for a 177-megawatt plant near the Carrizo Plain National Monument in San Luis Obispo County’s eastern extreme.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has contracted to buy the electricity from that $550 million plant, which is scheduled to go online in 2011.
"A lot of people in this energy space make a lot of claims," said Fishman, a 30-year power- industry veteran who joined the solar startup in 2007. "We built this facility to show everybody that we’re not just talkers, we’re doers."
Most people think of photovoltaic panels on rooftops when they think of solar.
Fishman said that’s not what Ausra does with solar.
Tidal power! It's actually powering a supermarket in New York City.
VerdantPower wrote:
The RITE Project
East River - New York, NY
Initiated in 2002, Verdant Power’s Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Project is being operated in New York City’s East River, along the eastern shore of Roosevelt Island.
In three phases, the RITE Project will test, demonstrate and deliver commercial electricity from a tidal Free Flow System. The project is progressing from an initial demonstration system to a complete system of turbines that could generate up to 10 MW, enough to power nearly 8,000 New York homes.
A World-First Initiative
In December of 2006, Verdant Power installed its first grid-connected tidal turbine at the RITE Project. The remaining turbines to make up a six-turbine demonstration system were installed as of May 2007. This stands as the world’s first grid-connected array of tidal turbines. The RITE Project has also accomplished the following:
* ~50 MWh of electricity delivered to customers (world leader)
* 7000+ hours of operation (world leader)
* Fully bidirectional tidal operation (world first)
* FERC allows Verdant Power to test energy delivery from RITE demonstration array with its “Verdant” ruling
* Two turbines retrofitted with next-generation rotors in September 2008
* Project has received overwhelming community support
Electricity Delivered!
A key objective of the RITE Project is to test the transmission of electricity from Verdant Power’s tidal turbines to end users. To help accomplish this, two end users on Roosevelt Island agreed to receive electricity generated by the demonstration system, installed in the East River: a Gristede’s Supermarket and the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) Motorgate parking garage.
On December 12, 2006, the first of this electricity was transmitted to the participating Gristede’s Supermarket, marking the first time in history that such a technology has delivered energy to an end-use customer. This test transmission also demonstrated the ability of Verdant Power’s system to provide grid-connected electricity, with no switching or power quality problems, in the heart of one of the world’s largest cities.