Print

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

[Rezan]

My country primarily uses dams for its power, but waves and tidal power are viable options as well (after we do more research on the two).

I'm not sure you WOULD build a thousand Hoover Dams, mainiac. I think the corporations would exploit whatever they could for more money. What benefit is it to the corporations if people get cheap, clean electricity? A lot of big companies would lose money on that.

[mainiac]

You are cynical, therefore you are allowed to assert that people are illogical without bothering to back up your arguments.

[Rezan]

I did back up my arguments. I am however, as previously mentioned, painfully ignorant as to what the development possibilities actually are. What are your arguments that the corporations would do that? I mean, the ones with means to invest in a project with such extensive costs to set up? Those dams sure as hell aren't cheap.

[E. Albright]

Hydro is limited by location.  If we could build a thousand Hoover Dams, we would.  But we don't have a thousand suitable locations.

The other problem with hydro is that it can have some pretty severe environmental, social, and economic impact in terms of mega-dam reservoir creation. This is a bitterly debated subject in some nations that go in heavily for hydro (e.g., India).

[mainiac]

I did back up my arguments. I am however, as previously mentioned, painfully ignorant as to what the development possibilities actually are. What are your arguments that the corporations would do that? I mean, the ones with means to invest in a project with such extensive costs to set up? Those dams sure as hell aren't cheap.

Most mega dams aren't corporate endeavors.  In fact, government sponsorship of all sorts of electric generating industries is a time honored tradition.  Because people tend not to give a damn about the free market when it comes to utilities.  Utilities are very extensive projects and can not sustain competing producers most of the time but we want them to work.  Big ole damns like the Hoover dam are even more unlikely to be left to the private sector.

[jaded empath]

Well, before I follow the conversational drift, I agree that there should be a means of unloading the cars one accumulates, even if it's just a 'ditch the junker' Action similar to dumping bodies.


NOW, on to the 'energy sources' tangent:

One thing to remember is those ol' Laws of Thermodynamics; you can't get something for nothing, and well-nigh invariably, you always get less back that what you paid in.

Another thing to remember is every change has consequences:

Fossil fuel?   Increased waste CO2 and greenhouse gases, reduction of relatively non-renewable resource (unless you're willing to wait for a few million years for fresh stuff to be created )

Nuclear power?  Waste materials from fission, as well as greater consequences if accidents happen than with a coal power plant, or a diesel locomotive breaks disastrously, and even MORE non-renewable fuel.  Fusion takes a huge overhead to get started, is very difficult to continue stably, and when becomes unstable has a huge potential for an equally huge initial disaster, although with far less long-term 'irradiation' consequences than fission.

Hydroelectric?  A) Radically changing environment surrounding the dam (flooding a valley upstream, and turning a river into a trickle downstream) and B) potential disaster waiting downstream (See "Force 10 From Navarone" )

Wind Power?  All those propeller-dynamos are being 'pushed' by the wind, and some of the air's kinetic energy is being transformed into electrical potential...and so there's LESS WIND leeward of the big prop farm.  Climate is altered by the 'theft' of this energy from the equation.

Tidal?  See Wind, just in a different medium.

Solar?  Well, if you are using ground-based collection, you're stopping that light energy from reaching the planet itself.  Climate changes because less heat reaching ground, quite apart from the clearing swaths of land to place the solar cell array.

Now, if you're thinking of space-based collection, you're starting to pique my interest.  Lagrange Points (apart L3 being waaay too far away, and L2 being in the Earth's shadow, and L1 actually shading part of the Earth...besides, the first 3 Lagrange points are pretty unstable, anyway) would be a good place to situate a HUGE solar collector array, and L4 & L5 would be collecting energy that would almost certainly be heading for deep space, and not the other planets, and couldn't possibly have any consequential effect on them due to the relatively minuscule amount of energy we're leeching off...honest...

Then you only have the issue of transferring that stored energy from the solar collection satellite to the Earth itself - SAFELY, mind you; no transmitting a microwave signal that misses the expected reception site due to unexpected high-altitude weather altering air density, and a city gets torched by mistake.


In short, when it comes to Mother Nature, you can still 'cheat the house', but only temporarily, and the punishments are rarely in a foreseeable manner.

[a1s]

I know I'm nitpicking, but:

and when [fusion] becomes unstable has a huge potential for an equally huge initial disaster

that is actually untrue, unlike fission, which requires over a kilogram of fissionable material to be in the reactor at all times, fusion actually runs on small amounts of fuel which is periodically injected (much like your car's engine), and should the reactor be breached the reaction will put itself out, rather than detonate the rest of the fuel (as some of you might now, the problem we have today is not putting the accidental runaway reactions out, but keeping the useful reaction going). Fusion isn't the answer (limited resource) but it is safe, and clean.

Solar?  Well, if you are using ground-based collection, you're stopping that light energy from reaching the planet itself.  Climate changes because less heat reaching ground, quite apart from the clearing swaths of land to place the solar cell array.

First of all, solar panels are way inefficient (meaning, among other things, they don't really prevent that much "light energy" from reaching the planet), but let's assume that we already have 99% efficient solar power, have you noticed how people are afraid of global warming? What exactly do you think warms our "globe"? That same light energy. So we're killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
edit: forgot to address the land use issue: we already have hurdles of empty land in prime solar collecting locations: subtropical zone is choke-full of deserts barely habitable by humans.

[mainiac]

You almost won my eternal love when you brought up the matter of Solar Power Stations at Lagrange points.  Almost.

However:
1)  Lagrange points aren't a particularly attractive location.  Which is not to say they don't have some advantages.  It's a fun area for debate so you can get a pass for this.  But...
2)  Microwave power transmission is completely safe.  The thought of it torching a city is absurd.
a)  Microwaves have a very long wavelength and generally just pass through matter undisturbed.  Over a small depth, like a human body or a building, a microwave will impact a thousandth to a millionth of the energy that a visible light of the same intensity does (depending on the exact wavelength.)
b)  It wouldn't hit a city in the first place.  It's kinda easy to aim precisely when you don't have any friction or atmosphere fouling up your aim.


vis-a-vis your argument about the various renewable energy sources being depleted downstream, please see "Bucket, Drop in the"

[Neonivek]

I think our current solar sells are less then 10% efficiant and we are hoping in the next few decades to get it up to 14% or something.

[Yanlin]

Some scientist guys did the math of how much energy we could harvest if all the sun's energy was collected except what is going towards earth. The results? we could power about a few billion million earths.

Now if you're math savvy, you know what that means. That means that even a small solar station in space that doesn't shadow the earth is 100% eco friendly for us. No matter the efficiency since in space, they actually have 100% efficiency. Or something like that.

[a1s]

Some scientist guys did the math of how much energy we could harvest if all the sun's energy was collected except what is going towards earth. The results? we could power about a few billion million earths.

Now if you're math savvy, you know what that means. That means that even a small solar station in space that doesn't shadow the earth is 100% eco friendly for us. No matter the efficiency since in space, they actually have 100% efficiency. Or something like that.

that if faulty logic. with just what the North American power plants produce today you could supply 1900 earth 100 times over even if all the lights and factories worked 24/7. that doesn't mean we have an abundance of energy (in fact most people think the opposite is true)

And solar panels are not 100% efficient in space. When people tell you SPs are 10% efficient they don't count what the atmosphere absorbs, just how much energy you get from what reaches the panel (so a solar panel in space will produce more energy, but's it's still 10% efficient).

[Yanlin]

Funny. I thought the efficiency of something was measured by the maximum effectiveness and the actual effectiveness.

[mainiac]

The benefits of a solar power station are more then just the light which gets reflected back by the atmosphere:

Construction: On earth, solar power is dramatically limited by available space and the need to make systems structurally sound.  A solar panel space station could be both very large and fragile and could be built anywhere for power anywhere.

Distribution: And solar panel station can beam energy to anyplace on earth with a receiving station.  Energy lost in transit is less and you have to build fewer redundant systems because energy is pooled worldwide instead of locally.

Consistency: The double effectiveness due to no nighttime is a plus.  But also nice is that the chance of failure is lower then for any other type of power.  Thus you'll have another reason for needing fewer redundant systems and wont have to resort to less efficient back up power systems.

[a1s]

you are of course right with location, in principle. but like I said we already have lots of viable locations (for our immediate needs), and building stuff in space costs an arm and a leg (and lot's of money too  )

as for distribution: the other overhyped thing modern times (besides global warming) is terrorism, and even if the impact of the microwave ray is but 0.01% of what light of the same energy would have had, considering the actual energy carried will have to be over a gigajoule/second for any major city (that is if the beam is continuous, rather than periodic, which has it's own benefits, such as ease of redirecting to a different location, or use of the same station for multiple locations), it's going to burn anyone or anything to a crisp nigh instantly.
the other thing is efficiency of transfer. Both the dispersion in atmospere, and the efficiency of the emitter itself, which is doubly important in space where any heat generated by the microwave emitter is going to be hard as hell to dispose of.

I don't see why the chance of failure is any lower than in other types of power generators, but I must agree that having the panels be working 24 hours per day is a plus.

[Rezan]

Costs would be through the roof on it. You'd have to build it, launch it and maintain it. Meteors moving at several thousand kilometres per hour are not kind to solar panels (or space stations in general).