Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Green Energy

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 7:30:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Topic: This forum is to discuss the workings of Green Energy and any ideas that people might have.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 7:34:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whenever I hear "green energy", I think of people shoveling piles of marijuana plants into a burning furnace.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 7:41:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nukes, Orbital Solar, and more Nukes.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 8:19:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Opinion: I feel that a combination of solar, wind, and hydro technology will be the energy sources in the near future. I am currently learning how to build some of the systems used to generate electric power. So far I have learned how to build solar panels for about $1 a watt and 2 different kinds of wind generators. I don't currently have a shop to build anything in, but soon I hope to build some of these to further expand on my knowledge.

Statement: To make a kilowatt of solar power you need 2000 of the little mini solar panels that I have found. They can be bought for about 50cents a piece and generate about 1/2 watt of electricity each. I'm not sure how large this panel would actually be but I will try to do the math and figure out the cost. I think that an average energy efficient house could run on about 2 kilowatts per day, but I am still learning so don't quote me on anything yet.

Personal: I find this field very exciting and I will keep posting new information that I find.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 9:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
wind, solar etc. can't compete with something like nuclear.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 10:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 9:13:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
wind, solar etc. can't compete with something like nuclear.

Except that wind, solar, and hydro energy generation are all free. Nuclear will just be another thing that a corporation will try to make people pay for. If the nuclear energy was given to the public for free, I would advocate it.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 10:54:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 10:39:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 9:13:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
wind, solar etc. can't compete with something like nuclear.

Except that wind, solar, and hydro energy generation are all free. Nuclear will just be another thing that a corporation will try to make people pay for. If the nuclear energy was given to the public for free, I would advocate it.

Corporations would also charge for wind and solar, neither of which is efficient. Solar will one day become viable when we put it into orbital solar arrays that beam energy down to earth. Nukes are the best option for they offer the energy at the lowest possible prices and new reactor designs are making them cheaper and more efficient by the day.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 2:56:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 10:54:29 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/13/2011 10:39:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 9:13:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
wind, solar etc. can't compete with something like nuclear.

Except that wind, solar, and hydro energy generation are all free. Nuclear will just be another thing that a corporation will try to make people pay for. If the nuclear energy was given to the public for free, I would advocate it.

Corporations would also charge for wind and solar, neither of which is efficient. Solar will one day become viable when we put it into orbital solar arrays that beam energy down to earth. Nukes are the best option for they offer the energy at the lowest possible prices and new reactor designs are making them cheaper and more efficient by the day.

Reply: People can buy or make solar and wind power for their individual area and then never have to pay for it again. Nuclear power would be a monthly charge just like it is now. The corporations will still own your energy. Solar and wind energy are efficient enough to run an energy efficient home right now, the problem is that most houses are not set up for it. most houses are not energy efficient and do not have enough space for the systems. Once energy efficiency is taken to a new level, houses will be fully capable of incorporating off the green technology.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 2:42:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Reply: I agree. It is a valuable resource to be tapped into. It not gonna be just one thing that replaces fossil fuels. It's going to be multiple different energy sources.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 5:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.

"Human caused global crust warming" I believe is the term, Al Gore is looking into it for us.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 5:58:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.

It also increases surface instability.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 5:58:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.

It also increases surface instability.

It's a double whammy. However, at least it has the possibility to decrease carbon emissions, which may or may not be the cause of global warming.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:16:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:00:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.

It also increases surface instability.

It's a double whammy. However, at least it has the possibility to decrease carbon emissions, which may or may not be the cause of global warming.

Opinion: I still vote for solar, wind, hydro, and bio energy technologies. Nuclear could be just another disaster waiting to happen and geothermal still needs a lot of research to be done. Making human technologies more energy efficient would greatly increase the usefulness of green energy. Our entire modern civilization is based off of the energy resource of burning fire. It's time to see what we can do with the other elements, while still harnessing non-destructive ways of using the element of fire as an energy source (solar energy).
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:20:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:16:03 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:00:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:14:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:04:53 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I think that geo-thermal is the most under-talked about of renewable energies.

Couldn't that have serious repercussions, since you are essentially cooling the earth's core.

It also increases surface instability.

It's a double whammy. However, at least it has the possibility to decrease carbon emissions, which may or may not be the cause of global warming.

Opinion: I still vote for solar, wind, hydro, and bio energy technologies. Nuclear could be just another disaster waiting to happen and geothermal still needs a lot of research to be done. Making human technologies more energy efficient would greatly increase the usefulness of green energy. Our entire modern civilization is based off of the energy resource of burning fire. It's time to see what we can do with the other elements, while still harnessing non-destructive ways of using the element of fire as an energy source (solar energy).

Nuclear energy is quite safe. Most of the fears are exaggerated. Furthermore, one must realize that all technology has risks to it. Chemical plants can explode, yet they are still a necessary virtue to our economy. You can not just state that there is a risk to using a technology, and ban that technology based on that risk, since the benefits can outstrip the risk.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:29:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I say that cars should be abolished and roads should be replaced with magnetic train tracks. That would solve a gargantuan assload of problems.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:07:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:29:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I say that cars should be abolished and roads should be replaced with magnetic train tracks. That would solve a gargantuan assload of problems.

Reply: Cool idea. I imagine highways which consist of side by side train tracks, almost like car lanes are on today's highways. They get off on different exits to go to different areas like a bus does. Sounds like a neat idea. Car traffic and accidents are becoming an increasing problem. Maybe one day it will happen one day FREEDO, but I suspect it won't be for another century or two.

Idea/Question: What about magnetic tracks for individual cars instead? You could just program where you want to go via GPS and then your car locks into the magnetic transportation grid and auto drives you there.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:15:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Link: Check this out. It is an all "green" city being built.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 9:15:08 PM, Tiel wrote:
Link: Check this out. It is an all "green" city being built.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Link: A link that goes to a website for the city.

http://www.masdar.ae...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible. People need to stop thinking of the future in terms of savior technologies: they aren't coming. What is coming is a moral revolution; greed is tightning the rope around our neck and sooner or later we are going to hang ourselves. We must learn to live within our means and not just assume that we can build whatever we want, consume whatever we want, take whatever we want, etc. Everyone seems to be under this spell that innovative techniques are going to step in at the last moment and save us from all our ills so that we can continue to act like pigs forever.
Rob
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 10:05:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 9:15:08 PM, Tiel wrote:
Link: Check this out. It is an all "green" city being built.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's amazing and encouraging.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 10:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible. People need to stop thinking of the future in terms of savior technologies: they aren't coming. What is coming is a moral revolution; greed is tightning the rope around our neck and sooner or later we are going to hang ourselves. We must learn to live within our means and not just assume that we can build whatever we want, consume whatever we want, take whatever we want, etc. Everyone seems to be under this spell that innovative techniques are going to step in at the last moment and save us from all our ills so that we can continue to act like pigs forever.

Reply: Society does need to change how it looks at energy as a whole, we must use our ingenuity to develop these alternative energies into the power sources of the future. We changed the world with fossil fuels in the matter of 1 century, now it's time to move onto other projects. Fossil fuels had a good life, now it's time to let them retire.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:42:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

The 200 year supply of uranium is only if fast-breeder reactors are prohibited. The article says that if they are used, the fuel supply extends to 30,000 years. There is no technical challenge at all, it's already been done. It's purely a matter of the cost and politics.

Per capita energy consumption in the United States has been dropping since 1980. The US has about 300 years supply of carbon fuels within it's boundaries. The problem is in the developing world, like India and china, where consumption is increasing rapidly.

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

The estimate seems to be about 75 years, so you are right. With 30,000 of fission fuel left, there is some margin there.

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

You're right, it is impractical most places. However, it is used to generate electricity from steam.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Wind has a very low energy density. Somebody calculated that to replace the nukes at Indian Point, near New York city, an area the size of the state of Rhode Island would be needed. Solar may be practical for residential use if somebody come up with a cheap storage device. There is cost saving in not having tp pay for the very expensive smart grid. It's o good for cities and industrial use in most places, but maybe near deerts.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

No, it's been studied for decades. The microwave energy densities are too low to affect wldlife and the atmospheric heating is insignificant. Expensive, though.

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible.

Silly. Want to debate the subject?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 4:20:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:42:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

The 200 year supply of uranium is only if fast-breeder reactors are prohibited. The article says that if they are used, the fuel supply extends to 30,000 years. There is no technical challenge at all, it's already been done. It's purely a matter of the cost and politics.

Per capita energy consumption in the United States has been dropping since 1980. The US has about 300 years supply of carbon fuels within it's boundaries. The problem is in the developing world, like India and china, where consumption is increasing rapidly.

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

The estimate seems to be about 75 years, so you are right. With 30,000 of fission fuel left, there is some margin there.

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

You're right, it is impractical most places. However, it is used to generate electricity from steam.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Wind has a very low energy density. Somebody calculated that to replace the nukes at Indian Point, near New York city, an area the size of the state of Rhode Island would be needed. Solar may be practical for residential use if somebody come up with a cheap storage device. There is cost saving in not having tp pay for the very expensive smart grid. It's o good for cities and industrial use in most places, but maybe near deerts.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

No, it's been studied for decades. The microwave energy densities are too low to affect wldlife and the atmospheric heating is insignificant. Expensive, though.

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible.

Silly. Want to debate the subject?

Question: How do you feel about the city Masdar?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 2:37:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible. People need to stop thinking of the future in terms of savior technologies: they aren't coming. What is coming is a moral revolution; greed is tightning the rope around our neck and sooner or later we are going to hang ourselves. We must learn to live within our means and not just assume that we can build whatever we want, consume whatever we want, take whatever we want, etc. Everyone seems to be under this spell that innovative techniques are going to step in at the last moment and save us from all our ills so that we can continue to act like pigs forever.

Thorium is more abundant than uranium so thorium reactors can soon take the place of uranium based ones. Also failure to calculate breeders as well as terra reactors that can burn our old spent fuel.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 4:31:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:42:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 7/14/2011 10:05:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Nuclear: most people don't realize how limited uranium is: http://www.scientificamerican.com...

At current rates, we have 200 years left of fuel. So as soon as we up the usage, that value of 200 decreases. One can imagine that, if we plan on getting any decent amount of time out of our reactors, that we'd better not use any more than we currently are.

The 200 year supply of uranium is only if fast-breeder reactors are prohibited. The article says that if they are used, the fuel supply extends to 30,000 years. There is no technical challenge at all, it's already been done. It's purely a matter of the cost and politics.

Cost and politics? Or creating weapons-grade plutonium? Considering that war tends to increase with time, how long can we last with all this nuclear material being made?

Per capita energy consumption in the United States has been dropping since 1980. The US has about 300 years supply of carbon fuels within it's boundaries. The problem is in the developing world, like India and china, where consumption is increasing rapidly.

...increasing to catch up with us :P

Fusion could replace fission, but you will all be old and gray before that happens.

The estimate seems to be about 75 years, so you are right. With 30,000 of fission fuel left, there is some margin there.

Oh you're a funny-guy now Roy. So do you think that we should continue to create weapons-grade plutonium then?

Geo: Mass geo is extremely limited (how many of us live near a pocket of magma?) but micro-geo is pretty promising... of course you still need to find a way to generate electricity because it's only good for heating and cooling.

You're right, it is impractical most places. However, it is used to generate electricity from steam.

Wind and solar: no potential for baseload power. People would need to change their consumption habits dramatically for these to effectively replace fossil fuels. I think these are the wave of the future anyway, because there isn't anything in the universe that is going to support our current consumption habits for long.

Wind has a very low energy density. Somebody calculated that to replace the nukes at Indian Point, near New York city, an area the size of the state of Rhode Island would be needed. Solar may be practical for residential use if somebody come up with a cheap storage device. There is cost saving in not having tp pay for the very expensive smart grid. It's o good for cities and industrial use in most places, but maybe near deerts.

We don't need a Rhode Island-sized windfarm if:
- we use micro-wind generators on houses to supplement macro-wind
- we supplement with solar, both micro and macro

But this still wouldn't be enough; I'm not saying that these techniques would replace fossil fuels and/or nuclear. We must also think in terms of reducing consumption. We don't have to live like refugees, but we also can't assume electricity is limitless.

Beaming down power from space is ridiculous; you're basically promoting the creation of thousands of machines to orbit Earth and cook our atmosphere as if Earth was a giant meatball. Prepare for a new generation of environmental ills!

No, it's been studied for decades. The microwave energy densities are too low to affect wldlife and the atmospheric heating is insignificant. Expensive, though.

Excuse me if I don't believe this - I lived through the twentieth century, after all, and saw how our needs affect the environment in ways that we are hard-pressed to fully consider. Maybe it wouldn't cook the birds out of the sky, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING it would do to harm us. Perhaps complementing global warming, affecting weather patterns, or affecting wildlife in ways we haven't yet considered.

Most other methods are either limited, environmentally unfriendly, or technologically not feasible.

Silly. Want to debate the subject?

I might, but not the open-ended statement I just made - that was more to stimulate a response than to stand the test of time. If you want to create a resolution with specific technologies listed to debate the efficacy thereof, then I would be happy.
Rob
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 10:01:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 4:31:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Cost and politics? Or creating weapons-grade plutonium? Considering that war tends to increase with time, how long can we last with all this nuclear material being made?

Actually, war is decreasing with time. However, what is the problem with the U.S. getting weapons grade plutonium? Carter asserted that we shouldn't use the technology because that would somehow discourage others from using it. So how is that working with Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Obviously it is not a factor for any country other than the US.

Oh you're a funny-guy now Roy. So do you think that we should continue to create weapons-grade plutonium then?

Good that you agree with the 75 years to practical fusion. That's seems to be the common estimate. Sure, there is not the slightest problem with the US creating weapons grade plutonium.

We don't need a Rhode Island-sized windfarm if:
- we use micro-wind generators on houses to supplement macro-wind
- we supplement with solar, both micro and macro

Solar makes a lot more sense than wind in most places, because sun rise and sunset are predictable, even with factors for cloudy days. The wind can die out for quite a log time, requiring a very large backup system. The example I used, however, was supplying New York City. Putting little windmills on the building does solve that problem. Something the size of Rhode Island is needed.

But this still wouldn't be enough; I'm not saying that these techniques would replace fossil fuels and/or nuclear. We must also think in terms of reducing consumption. We don't have to live like refugees, but we also can't assume electricity is limitless.

Electricity is effectively limitless. The amount that can be generated is way more than we'll ever need. The energy in the recent earthquake in Japan was about equal to the entire energy consumption of the US for a year. Human needs are small compared to the sources available. Solar power alone is virtually unlimited.

No, it's been studied for decades. The microwave energy densities are too low to affect wildlife and the atmospheric heating is insignificant. Expensive, though.

Excuse me if I don't believe this - I lived through the twentieth century, after all, and saw how our needs affect the environment in ways that we are hard-pressed to fully consider. Maybe it wouldn't cook the birds out of the sky, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING it would do to harm us. Perhaps complementing global warming, affecting weather patterns, or affecting wildlife in ways we haven't yet considered.

What you have is in the realm of religious belief, comparable to "man was never meant to fly" and the imagined evils of steam locomotives. Scientific articles have been published on the subject for 40 years. There is relevant experience with high powered radio transmitters. The big problem is cost. Getting big stuff up in space is really expensive. It might take building a moon base and launching stuff from there.

There is a simpler way to get the power down. Put a large reflector in orbit and use the sun to warm whole cities in the winter. If you worry about global warming, use the reflector to block some of the sunlight in the summer, saving air conditioning.

We should run some limited experiments with orbital reflectors and microwave transmission. We have hundreds of years to perfect the technology.

Silly. Want to debate the subject?

I might, but not the open-ended statement I just made - that was more to stimulate a response than to stand the test of time. If you want to create a resolution with specific technologies listed to debate the efficacy thereof, then I would be happy.

OK, I'll PM some draft resolutions.