Print

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

[Descan]

So we will fire the forges of progress off refined poop!

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, modern, large generators are more efficient in burning fuel than cars are, but I'm pretty sure that advantage is lost during inefficiencies in electric cars and such.

[alexandertnt]

On a side note, modern, large generators are more efficient in burning fuel than cars are, but I'm pretty sure that advantage is lost during inefficiencies in electric cars and such.

Electric cars still remain more efficient on a coal power grid, but not by very much, not enough to justify the extra cost of the car.

If most of your power is from renewables (and nuclear), than its quite efficient.


I wonder how much power I could get from replacing my radiator with a Stirling Generator?

[MrWiggles]

Nuclear, though it is a green power, it is not a renewable power. Radioactives, are a finite fuel source.

[Arx]

Radioactives are a finite fuel source.

Not on the same level as fossil fuels though. The Earth has fairly significant reserves of uranium and thorium (readily convertible to uranium), which should last far longer than any of the fossil fuels.

[10ebbor10]

Nuclear, though it is a green power, it is not a renewable power. Radioactives, are a finite fuel source.

The reserves are massive enough to qualify as near infite though. Ignoring Thorium, assuming a once through cycle and no advances in nuclear power, and utilizing only conventional Uranium resources and using nuclear for everything supplies will last a century. Recycling uranium will make reserves last 65 times longer. Add to that the uranium reserves are barely explored, due to low uranium prices. And then there are ocean reserves, which are almost 12 times larger (conservative estimate) than known conventional reserves.

Using fast breeder reactors and ocean reserves, we can sustain a modern energy use for everyone for the next two millenia. (still ignoring thorium FYI)

Materials used for the production of solar and wind power won't last that long, rivers will divert themselves, the coasts will change and geothermal deposits will move.

[MrWiggles]

But thats not the definition of renewable energy. Renewable energy, has a fuel source which can't be depleted, not that its impractical for it to be depleted.

Geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro and whatever wave catching is called, are fuel sources that can't be depleted.

[PanH]

But thats not the definition of renewable energy. Renewable energy, has a fuel source which can't be depleted, not that its impractical for it to be depleted.

Well, the sun will go cold sometimes, so solar isn't renewable, I guess.

[Arx]

This is just quibbling over details. We don't have any truly renewable resources on Earth. The sun will burn out, uranium and thorium will be depleted, the sea will freeze solid after the sun burns out, the atmosphere could be stripped off, etc. Some resources just last longer than others, and those which last for a very long time or aren't consumed by the generation of power are marked as 'renewable'.

[MrWiggles]

So, Coal and Crude Oil were renewable at one point?

[10ebbor10]

Point is, while it's not really renewable, it is certainly sustainable, and more so than some other fuel sources (conventional biofuels, for example).

So, Coal and Crude Oil were renewable at one point?

Definition is that it replenishes on a human timeframe. Oil creation takes time.

[alexandertnt]

has a fuel source which can't be depleted, not that its impractical for it to be depleted.

That means that we currently have no renewable sources, since the sun will die eventually.

[Sheb]

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'm all for investing in them, although I'm not convinced the bioreactor would be a better investment than larger, but cheaper pools. Anyway, look at the back-of-the-envelope calculation I did a bit earlier: you need a lot of sunlight, and you can't get that from stacking pipes.

[WillowLuman]

Your back-of-the-envelope calculations are mistaken then, because people have built photobioreactors and grown large amounts of algae in them. Cost-wise, ponds aren't actually always cheaper. You need a much, much larger area to get the same amount of algae, and space costs a lot, and in places where land is that cheap, the open-air shallow water would be subject to evaporation. Growing algae as a byproduct of waste-treatment is fine, but for a dedicated algae fuel farm, you'd need a more compact design.

[Sheb]

So I prove that you'd need hundreds of thousands of square kilometer of new infrastructure, and you tell me my calculation is wrong because people already built bioreactors? I think you may have reading comprehension issue.

Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, or even not a good idea, I'm just pointing out that it's going to be quite expensive.