Print

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

[Heron TSG]

Alternative energy is horrifyingly inefficient when compared to coal/oil/nuclear.

That's because most of our technology these days is based off of technology that primarily used these. As we progress, I'm sure we can get more work done with windmills, solar panels, and dams.

[Eagleon]

He has been running a pilot project of the technology at the University of Tennessee for the last two years, where the Bloom Box reportedly proved twice as efficient as traditional power sources and produced 60% fewer emissions.

I am incredibly skeptical of the take on efficiency. Alternative energy is horrifyingly inefficient when compared to coal/oil/nuclear. I always hear about how such-and-such energy source is "clean, efficient, and renewable." After looking into it, I always discover that the U.S. government is saturating the market with subsidies (like tax credits and the like) in order to make it a remotely viable option for businesses and residences.

I'm not going to be holding my breath, but if the man managed to create a new efficient energy source, good for him.

The problem is not quite efficiency. The problem is cost of operations. Wind turbines and solar panels are still expensive. If solar panels in particular were reduced in materials-cost, they'd see a lot more use even though they don't technically produce a lot of power for what's put into them, because anyone at all can learn to replace and maintain them. They'd offset the resources spent on power production significantly. If they could make a larger gain in efficiency by using a greater range of wavelengths the impact would be even greater. It doesn't make sense to just keep using what we have now (discounting nuclear, which is extremely underused) when there's so many other sources to take advantage of. We should be more sensible in giving out subsidies - they should go to promising research instead of start-ups with mediocre products - but it's not like we don't subsidize conventional power production too.

Conventional power plants (steam-driven) are limited by the Carnot cycle's maximum efficiency. More, in real life, they're actually extremely inefficient for how much they cost to maintain and operate, including shipping fuel, parts, labor, etc. both here and overseas. Fuel cells have higher maximum efficiency potential, practical and theoretical, and are simpler in mechanical design, operation, and maintenance. There have been numerous challenges facing them, not the least that most require hydrogen as a fuel source, but they have a lot of potential. If his can use natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuel sources (not really -that- revolutionary - there has been research into it from numerous angles), then yeah, they could easily overtake power requirements in cost for many areas. The fact that multiple organizations in the vicinity (Google, etc.) have started using his plants is encouraging - I don't think they'd keep quiet if they were just sitting on their lawns drinking up natural gas and putting nothing out in return.

[Lord Dakoth]

The problem is not quite efficiency. The problem is cost of operations. Wind turbines and solar panels are still expensive.

Kind of the same thing in my mind. Not to mention the high upkeep of wind turbines... and the fact that they don't operate when it's not windy.

I recently did a study for school on avian migration. One of my sources said that windmill farms were hazardous for migrating birds. This suggests that wind power is perhaps not as green as we'd like. Maybe we need to find an alternative alternative energy source?

I think that the best quality about wind and solar power is that they can operate in remote locations. If you have an isolated village in the middle of nowhere, it's going to be more logical to install solar panels than to hook up the place to a power grid some 2000 miles away.

I'd say that overall, traditional sources of energy are best suited for supplying large amounts of energy, say for an entire city. "Green" energy would be best for mobile equipment or remote locations.

[ein]

People are just scared of nuclear power because of Chernobyl and atomic weaponry.
Besides, there's this other element, thorium IIRC, that is incredibly more efficient than traditional uranium.
It would lead to smaller plants with higher outputs and less risk of a meltdown. Or something.
The real problem with nuclear power comes from "what do we do with the spent fuel rods and such?"

[Hawkfrost]

The real problem with nuclear power comes from "what do we do with the spent fuel rods and such?"

Drop them from space on people who annoy us?

[Sensei]

Send them to the Extreme Juggling League.

[sneakey pete]

I'd say that overall, traditional sources of energy are best suited for supplying large amounts of energy, say for an entire city. "Green" energy would be best for mobile equipment or remote locations.

Your both right and wrong at the same time there, aswell with your musings about efficiency.

While solar and wind power isn't as efficient as more tradional fossil fueled power, the reason that they're called renewable is why they're so good, and, the future. Fossil fuels are practically finite, the sun and wind are practically infinite. Solar panels might not be as energy efficient (and hell, hardly space efficient), however you can just crank out more of them and your only going to be wasting sunlike, which is just being wasted anyway. However, we're going to run out of coal and oil within a century or so (if someone pulls out that "300 year" crap from the 80's i'll slap you).

This is why, your right, currently it's much easier and cheaper to supply a cities energy needs with coal, oil and gas. But in the future there simply won't be anywhere enough coal oil and gas to burn on that scale, and we'll need to move onto solar or nuclear or wind power not because it's more efficient, but because its the only thing we'll have.

With regards to birds and wind turbines, i don't think its a huge problem, but i have no research to back it up, just a hunch.

As for this box, well, sounds like its shaping up to be a kind of fuel cell. Will be interested to see some actual data on its efficiency that's been properly scrutinized by an expert or two, as i'm a little skeptical. But hell, i've heard of some stupid things in my time, including a guy who said he'd build a hand sized fusion power source. He also claimed he'd made a device that could extinglish or ignite fire using just harmonic frequencies. and that the oil companies were trying to kill him... (its been 5 years and i've yet to hear more about this fusion device)

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I want a nuclear box. I take box to mean something the size of, say, a large engine.

In other words, I want a fallout style nuclear Cadillac.

EDIT:
Just saw the goddamn box. Even considering the size of big old cars, no awesome high-tech hot rod for me :<.

You realize Ford already tried that, and it was a flop, right?

Besides, it's a dirty bomb if someone crashes and burns, to say nothing of driving into a building deliberately.

I do indeed know of the Ford Nucleon and the inherent danger of nuclear cars.
However, they are really, really cool and I think that justifies it completely.

[vagel7]

I want a nuclear box. I take box to mean something the size of, say, a large engine.

In other words, I want a fallout style nuclear Cadillac.

EDIT:
Just saw the goddamn box. Even considering the size of big old cars, no awesome high-tech hot rod for me :<.

You realize Ford already tried that, and it was a flop, right?

Besides, it's a dirty bomb if someone crashes and burns, to say nothing of driving into a building deliberately.

I do indeed know of the Ford Nucleon and the inherent danger of nuclear cars.
However, they are really, really cool and I think that justifies it completely.

"And on today's news.

A crash of 10 new nuclear cars caused an explosion that wiped out half of Manhattan, currently New York City is being evacuated and experts and rescue teams have been called out. And now to our field reporter who is flying above Manhattan."

[G-Flex]

A giant box that magically burns fuel without producing waste products, transmits the energy wirelessly? And somehow manages to generate electricity from combustible fuels at high-efficiency?

This sounds like something that probably isn't complete bullshit, but I'll be damned if the things being said about it aren't.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I want a nuclear box. I take box to mean something the size of, say, a large engine.

In other words, I want a fallout style nuclear Cadillac.

EDIT:
Just saw the goddamn box. Even considering the size of big old cars, no awesome high-tech hot rod for me :<.

You realize Ford already tried that, and it was a flop, right?

Besides, it's a dirty bomb if someone crashes and burns, to say nothing of driving into a building deliberately.

I do indeed know of the Ford Nucleon and the inherent danger of nuclear cars.
However, they are really, really cool and I think that justifies it completely.

"And on today's news.

A crash of 10 new nuclear cars caused an explosion that wiped out half of Manhattan, currently New York City is being evacuated and experts and rescue teams have been called out. And now to our field reporter who is flying above Manhattan."

"Even though I can feel my cells dying as we speak, the sight of 10 giant nuclear cars exploding is actually too cool for words, so I shall attempt to describe it through dance."

[Earthquake Damage]

"Even though I can feel my cells dying as we speak, the sight of 10 giant nuclear cars exploding is actually too cool for words, so I shall attempt to describe it through dance."

Like this?

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

"Even though I can feel my cells dying as we speak, the sight of 10 giant nuclear cars exploding is actually too cool for words, so I shall attempt to describe it through dance."

Like this?

Yes, like that.