Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for solar, from what I recall one of the major design methods is, like. Nothing. It's just a frak-off huge mirror out in a clear area pointed at something you want to heat up. Relatively cheap, clean, not heavy on the rare metals or whatev'. Biggest problem would be transportation of the generated energy, but that's an issue with everything and not particularly unique to solar. That and getting people off their arse to go build it. There's someone else on the forum that's got a better handle on that stuff... I want to say Nadaka, but my memory's as spotty as ever. There's older posts laying around in one of the threads. Maybe in a couple.

That's solar thermal. It's better for the large scale than PV, at least for now. That said, the opposite is true for PV, which is excellent for small-scale power needs.

[misko27]

The main thing to consider is that, until revolutionnary discoveries in wind and solar, their power output is just too ridiculous (and expensive) to be considered as a large scale energy production.

For example, a solar pannel wouldn't be rentable (in money) over the course of his life if it wasn't subsidized.

As said, there's also the fact that they can't deliver a constant flow of energy, which makes them mostly useless for network. And there is no way to store large amounts of energy.

There is an XKCD for everything.

Even that whole energy density thing. Which, if you've got the paper and ink to do, PTTG, you should totally do.

It's not exactly the energy used though. We don't have 100% transformation to electricity.

If we could though, A adult human would be several nuclear bombs worth. A atomic weapon uses 1% of it's energy/

[Zrk2]

Still. There is a nuclear reactor right next to NYC. If that went, It's would literally be the worst disaster in american history. An ENTIRE CITY. Evaced until further notice. 911 ain't got nothing on that. And there is a faultline there, as has been proved recently.
 
I'm not saying it's bad. I actually am generally ambivalent if not supportive. It's just that It's high reward, low risk, but if it does happen, it'd be a massive fucking shitstorm.
 
It's like playing russian roulette with a million manequins, but with a nuke instead of a gun. The odds are long, but do you really want to risk it?

Statistically... yes.

[PTTG??]

As for solar, from what I recall one of the major design methods is, like. Nothing. It's just a frak-off huge mirror out in a clear area pointed at something you want to heat up. Relatively cheap, clean, not heavy on the rare metals or whatev'. Biggest problem would be transportation of the generated energy, but that's an issue with everything and not particularly unique to solar. That and getting people off their arse to go build it. There's someone else on the forum that's got a better handle on that stuff... I want to say Nadaka, but my memory's as spotty as ever. There's older posts laying around in one of the threads. Maybe in a couple.

That's solar thermal. It's better for the large scale than PV, at least for now. That said, the opposite is true for PV, which is excellent for small-scale power needs.

Actually, I looked up the numbers. Thermal Solar is actually more expensive per watt-hour than PV solar.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for solar, from what I recall one of the major design methods is, like. Nothing. It's just a frak-off huge mirror out in a clear area pointed at something you want to heat up. Relatively cheap, clean, not heavy on the rare metals or whatev'. Biggest problem would be transportation of the generated energy, but that's an issue with everything and not particularly unique to solar. That and getting people off their arse to go build it. There's someone else on the forum that's got a better handle on that stuff... I want to say Nadaka, but my memory's as spotty as ever. There's older posts laying around in one of the threads. Maybe in a couple.

That's solar thermal. It's better for the large scale than PV, at least for now. That said, the opposite is true for PV, which is excellent for small-scale power needs.

Actually, I looked up the numbers. Thermal Solar is actually more expensive per watt-hour than PV solar.

How much? PV is on a sharp cost decline, but that would be news to me.

[PanH]

Untrue, both have entered an exponential growth curve and are going to be major players by 2020.

Source ? It is improving, but a few percents of efficiency won't help. Other technologies are also improving (though their application needs more time to be effective).

People wouldn't pay for oil and coal if they weren't subsidized far more than they wouldn't do so for renewables. Oil and Coal get 60 billion a year in subsidized costs in the US, all renewables get 4 billion a year. Anyway, subsidization is not a bad thing if it works out well.

For USA, grid based, oil and coal produce approximatively 13 times the energy of the group geothermal, wind, solar, waste and wood. Which means for the same amount of money, a solar panel (took the whole group, but same) would come of with 15% more (if it was grid only).

Wrong and wrong. An electric network needs both a constant baseline and a temporary spike in order to deal with fluctuating power demands. And as it just so happens, the times when solar produces the most power is the time when people use the most power. You can store large amounts of energy, not just through capacitors, but also through gravitational energy storage (using the power to move a volume of water and then releasing it onto a hydroelectric generator with a weight). The latter is already in wide use.

There is 2 periods with more important consumption : afternoon-night (daily), and winter (seasonal).
Capacitors can't store large amounts of energy, they're used to smooth the output to the exact consumption. Generally, the energy is stored at most a day. The whole world energy storage is estimated at a hundred GW (104 to 127) while the total world production being at 21,325,115GW. That's not really wide use. It's just to smooth the prodution with the production over short durations.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Source ? It is improving, but a few percents of efficiency won't help. Other technologies are also improving (though their application needs more time to be effective).

Wind. Solar (look at the first two columns, would use the source but this is an assembled graph).

Sorry, but when people talk about "efficiency" and "more time" in regards to renewables, it is a clear sign that they do not know what they are talking about. Efficiency is a distracting factor. It is good, but what is important is actual power output. For example, the internal combustion engine is only 15% efficient and an incandescent lightbulb is somewhere in the order of (memory) 10% efficient. The latter is not a lightbulb, it is a heat bulb that produces a light byproduct. Nonetheless, both were vitally useful to us.

As for time, the time is now. As long as people still believe this "oh, just a few years" myth (which I personally suspect is disinformation) we will never transition to renewables. The numbers do not lie, both wind and solar are viable, now.

For USA, grid based, oil and coal produce approximatively 13 times the energy of the group geothermal, wind, solar, waste and wood. Which means for the same amount of money, a solar panel (took the whole group, but same) would come of with 15% more (if it was grid only).

Renweables were at 12.6% of US power in 2011 and have grown since then, making your approximation impossible. And this is about subsidization, which is not a purely mathematical problem. The value of subsidization is in its ability to force an increase in market access.

[Doomblade187]

Another big issue with renewables is space- wind and solar farms take up a good bit of land if they're to be large sources of power- subsidies can't always help with that.

On another related sidenote, a possibly viable way to short-term reduce our carbon output is to convert coal plants to Natural Gas. We have a lot of it in the states, too. It's already happening somewhat, but not entirely.

[mainiac]

Another big issue with renewables is space- wind and solar farms take up a good bit of land if they're to be large sources of power- subsidies can't always help with that.

No... just no.

[PanH]

Source ? It is improving, but a few percents of efficiency won't help. Other technologies are also improving (though their application needs more time to be effective).

Wind. Solar (look at the first two columns, would use the source but this is an assembled graph).

I was talking about the output of a single panel (but I wasn't clear). Panels have improved their efficiency from solar energy to electricity, but it's still pretty limited. This production, while increasing, is still rather weak.
Improvements for other means is just slower to apply (mainly because you don't change a plant as often as a solar panel).

Renweables were at 12.6% of US power in 2011 and have grown since then, making your approximation impossible. And this is about subsidization, which is not a purely mathematical problem. The value of subsidization is in its ability to force an increase in market access.

There is also hydropower in renewables, and it's undoubtedly the biggest part (60%).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was talking about the output of a single panel (but I wasn't clear). Panels have improved their efficiency from solar energy to electricity, but it's still pretty limited. This production, while increasing, is still rather weak.
Improvements for other means is just slower to apply (mainly because you don't change a plant as often as a solar panel).

Now you're just deflecting with weasel words.

There is also hydropower in renewables, and it's undoubtedly the biggest part (60%).

I...didn't say it wasn't? Hydropower is not growing significantly right now, though. The major hydroelectric areas have either been exploited or are too resilient to have a project approved. Microhydro is growing, but that is an even newer idea than tidal power.

[PanH]

Now you're just deflecting with weasel words.

Obviously.

I...didn't say it wasn't? Hydropower is not growing significantly right now, though. The major hydroelectric areas have either been exploited or are too resilient to have a project approved. Microhydro is growing, but that is an even newer idea than tidal power.

the group geothermal, wind, solar, waste and wood.

I'm saying "Coal/oil have the same ratio subsidize/energy produced than this group (which was the easiest simplification of wind/solar I found at the moment).

[10ebbor10]

Still. There is a nuclear reactor right next to NYC. If that went, It's would literally be the worst disaster in american history. An ENTIRE CITY. Evaced until further notice. 911 ain't got nothing on that. And there is a faultline there, as has been proved recently.
 
I'm not saying it's bad. I actually am generally ambivalent if not supportive. It's just that It's high reward, low risk, but if it does happen, it'd be a massive fucking shitstorm.
 
It's like playing russian roulette with a million manequins, but with a nuke instead of a gun. The odds are long, but do you really want to risk it?

Statistically... yes.

It would by far not be the worst disaster in American history. Might make the top 10 if it's really bad, but I doubt that'll happen. You seem to think that a nuclear reactor just randomly explodes. In fact, there are reasons for all these explosions.* The reactor you're talking about, Indian Point, is an interesting example, because it used to be one of the most unsafest nuclear reactors in the US. It's a traditional Second generation reactor, and FYI located 38 miles away from New York. This means that barring a complete core meltdown/breach***, New York City won't need to be evacuated.

Secondly, the reactor is build to whistand Earthquakes as strong as 6.1 on the Richter scale. Much likely, the earthquake needs to be much stronger to do actual damage. The sole reason why the Fukushima plant, which was build with the same circumstances in mind, experienced so much trouble is because Tepco cut corners, and more importantly, a Tsunami flooded the emergency cooling system's power generator. With quakes that strong, you'll be facing severe damage in New York and it's surroundings, making the possible reactor damage and it's results almost neglible. (Chances of being damaged are only 1/10000**, which also makes it once more the most dangerous generator in the US).

Thirdly, note that this is a Second generation reactor. 4^th gen have much improved safety, and are also far more reliable.

In total, over the entire history of nuclear engineering, there have been only 3 serious accidents using nuclear reactors. 2 of them were caused by human error.In total, there have been only a 100 accidents. Note that this includes people stealing radiation cores from hospitals and such, so the amount of reactor accidents is far lower.
In fact, you might as well ask yourself what'd happen if the Hoover dam, or any other hydroelectrical power plan broke.
 

*Not that there've been many actually.
** Again, the highest in the US. Note that damaged does not mean breach
***Something that in the entire history of nuclear engineering hasn't happened, ever. Partial meltdowns happened in both Fukushima and The 3 miles island incident, but failed to breach reactor containment (Fukushima nuclear pollution was cooling water leaking away.)

[10ebbor10]

In fact, you might as well ask yourself what'd happen if the Hoover dam, or any other hydroelectrical power plant broke.

What would happen if a plan for power broke?

Fine, grammar Nazi.

Oh, and the breaking of hydrological power plan can result in severe mismanagement consequences, including drought, power shortage, environemental problems, flooding, and such...

[miauw62]

Nuclear power also includes nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is super-awesome power that doesn't seem to generate any waste.