Print

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

[martinuzz]

I thought about nuking the Sahara, turning it into a big glass plains, then planting it full of solar panels.
Drawback would be that it would probably cause more global warming, as the dark glass will probably trap a lot more of the sun's heat into our geosphere that the light desert sand does.

[Frumple]

Well, you need light for your algae, so you structure has to be more or less flat.

Like. Mirrors, right? Or something with some water flow so the algae rotates into sunlight? Might be able to rock something pyramidal or cylindrical with stuff like that.

Also, uh. Sides. Sides get sunlight, too. Pretty sure that's why vertical farming works at all?

E: What I'm saying is I don't think flat has much to do with it. Hang a giant clear pyramid from a zeppelin and float it over the alps -- still work. Ridiculously inefficient, of course, but hell, Babylon needs to be one-upped one of these days. Forget the hanging gardens, we'll have the Flying Seven Wonders Algae Farm.

[mainiac]

trap a lot more of the sun's heat into our geosphere that the light desert sand does.

That's going to be a problem with any solar source.  Any solar source is going to generate waste heat.  It's an energy problem.

Now there is a ratio of heat to output to care about which my memory fails, so maybe it's worse (or better).

[Sheb]

We use 87 millions barrels of oil a day, so about 1,7 GW of oil power. Under good conditions, you can get an average 6500 W/m² of solar energy per day. If we assume 2% photosynthetic efficiency*, you need to capture the light of 13*10^6 m² to produce enough biofuels, or about 13000 square kilometers. Whether you do it directly or using mirrors to shine on your bacterial tanks doesn't matter. Of course, you're not going to capture the whole of the light (green wavelength aren't much use for exemple), not all your plants will be in optimal places, you'll have other losses etc etc...

* Aka 2% of the whole solar energy ends up in fuel. Probably widely overoptimistic.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I am so pleased that so many people are actually bringing up good points and arguments in this thread.
If I bring this up with my normal group of friends and acquaintances they just give the whole ¨Well green energy is better¨ crap that (already in this thread) has been proven wrong.

Thanks Bay12!

[Neonivek]

I would like to know any of your ideas on an actual clean energy source or sources
Logical ways to collect this clean energy
ways to implement this clean source of energy in everyday situations

For example:
My uncle has his entire house powered by solar panels and then some so he gets $20 a month from the power company.

Also does anyone have a similar situation that is actually happening?

Clean energy doesn't exist... it is a salespitch and many of the most "Environmentally friendly" energy sources have been worse then pollution factories.

And I am not supporting pollution factories so much as saying that... just because something says "clean energy" it doesn't mean it is.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

When posting this for clean energy (in my own definition of this) was anything that
1-damages the environment less than conventional energy sources (coal, petroleum, etc.)
2- releases fewer harmful chemicals than conventional energy sources
3- is just as useful/ efficient as conventional energy sources

But you do make a good point

I would, as a side note, like for all of you to add your thoughts for what you think clean energy should mean

[Descan]

I'd say clean would mean that it is sustainable/efficient and any pollution it produces is either manageable or one-time. Such as PV cells, a bit of up-front pollution costs but over the in-use lifespan, no pollution. Or nuclear, a bit of environmental damage to extract the fuel, and the waste exists (but lessened with certain nuclear plants, such as re-breeders or thorium), but we can manage it.

[WillowLuman]

Biofuels, at least the current sorts are horrible. We just don't have enough land. Algae are awesome, but you need much more infrastructure. I remember doing the math and you'd need 100000 sq km of algal tanks to produce enough biofuels to replace all our oil us.

This implies the two major misconceptions that plague most arguments against using new forms of energy:

1) That any new source of energy would need to completely replace current ones on its own to be viable
2) That building new infrastructure is never a justified expense

Neither of which are true. Again, a combination of energy sources and fuels is required to achieve sustainable energy.

Algae does not, in fact, require a flat surface to grow. Neither does it require land, as the useful kinds for fuel grow only in water. Growing algae in big flat ponds isn't going to get you far. What you need is a photobioreactor, miles of glass pipes wound and stacked up in a relatively small space with all the nutrients and algae inside:

I thought about nuking the Sahara, turning it into a big glass plains, then planting it full of solar panels.
Drawback would be that it would probably cause more global warming, as the dark glass will probably trap a lot more of the sun's heat into our geosphere that the light desert sand does.

There are far, far more drawbacks with that idea than just the dark glass. Don't have time to go into them right now, though, gotta run to class.

[Neonivek]

How about the fact that...

Destroying an entire ecosystem, the sahara, should instantly an irrevocably eliminate it from being a "Clean energy" source by default.

[Levi]

How about the fact that...

Destroying an entire ecosystem, the sahara, should instantly an irrevocably eliminate it from being a "Clean energy" source by default.

Reminds me that a friend of mine gets annoyed at me when I call deserts a "Lack of environment".  She grew up in southern US, I grew up in northern British Columbia.   

Algae does not, in fact, require a flat surface to grow. Neither does it require land, as the useful kinds for fuel grow only in water. Growing algae in big flat ponds isn't going to get you far. What you need is a photobioreactor, miles of glass pipes wound and stacked up in a relatively small space with all the nutrients and algae inside:

That is actually really cool.  I wonder what they need to use for nutrients, and how sustainable feeding the algae is?

[10ebbor10]

Quite sustainable actually. I mean, they're photosynthetic and small, which makes them pretty easy to maintain. I think I remember a project where they combined it with a fishery. Waste from the fish was dumped into the algae, which quickly recycled it. Trouble was, IIRC, that the amount of space fish needed was to large, making the entire thing somewhat problematic.

On a side note, solar pannels are arguably not clean. After all, they don't last that long, and the pollution created is significant. Additionally, power production is very small, unlike nuclear.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

You guys didn't think I had an answer to the problem of ethanol production using up too much arable land and causing everyone to starve to death, did you? Well I do.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'll have you know, alcohol has calories.

[mainiac]

But will it mince?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Anything will mince, given enough mincing power.