• Wind and wave energies are probably not renewable after all
    244 replies, posted
Solution: Dyson sphere. A medium powered star can generate on the yotta-watt scale. That's uh, 10^24. Terra is 10^12. Obviously it's really hard, but that would power about... :psyboom: earths.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28997148]It takes a lot more than a bunch of giant fans to [B]stop wind[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28997252] Last I heard they got fusion to 60% efficiency, the only thing holding fusion back is the lack of funds.[/QUOTE] I remember that, just needed a refresher. No one is going to fund nuclear power now, since people are too "OMG NUCLEAR POWER AND THE END OF THE WORLD 2 YEARS? THE END IS NIGH!". Still Thorium needs to be introduced too. It will provide a nice middle man from the transition from uranium to fusion.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28997370]Uh, it's not a theory. His calculations could be off, but it's pretty well established that if you're taking energy out of a system to use there is less in the system.[/QUOTE] It is a theory, there is no denying that, even gravity is a theory.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997404]It's not as simple as that, as the guy has shown in his models/calculations. He's specifically arguing that it won't STOP wind. It'll just affect climate patterns, precipitation and the like. Proof that you didn't actually read any of the article.[/QUOTE] I see. Well, I stand corrected, even though I still doubt this will affect the environment that much. Not as much as thermal power stations do, at least
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28997370]Uh, it's not a theory. His calculations could be off, but it's pretty well established that if you're taking energy out of a system to use there is less in the system.[/QUOTE] The real question is, are we going to use enough of that energy up to make a difference? I don't really think there's anything humans do that doesn't change the environment.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;28997465]I see. Well, I stand corrected, even though I still doubt this will affect the environment that much. Not as much as thermal power stations do, at least[/QUOTE] Fair enough. It doesn't affect the environment much (at the levels we're using at the moment) but he's saying if we tried to power all of humanity off wind power then we'd have problems. I still advocate the use of local renewables where they make sense. Also, I still love the idea of building a massive solar panel array in the Sahara, but if this guy is right then that'll fuck shit up as well. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;28997453]It is a theory, there is no denying that, even gravity is a theory.[/QUOTE] Gravity is a theory, but this isn't really a theory yet, it's not solid enough and hasn't really been tested in real life, although it's based on firm ground (thermodynamics). Theories in general are well-accepted and firm e.g. gravity, evolution
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997537]Fair enough. It doesn't affect the environment much (at the levels we're using at the moment) but he's saying if we tried to power all of humanity off wind power then we'd have problems. I still advocate the use of local renewables where they make sense. Also, I still love the idea of building a massive solar panel array in the Sahara, but if this guy is right then that'll fuck shit up as well. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] Gravity is a theory, but this isn't really a theory yet, it's not solid enough yet. Theories in general are well-accepted and firm e.g. gravity, evolution[/QUOTE] Hypothesis then
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28997591]Hypothesis then[/QUOTE] Yeah, let's go with that
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997167]Got any equations or calculations you used?[/QUOTE] What are your parameters?
[QUOTE=Explosions;28997607]What are your parameters?[/QUOTE] Sounds like something Hitler would say.
There is "renewable" energy, but just not enough. I think solar collectors (aka a mirror heating up a fluid in a pipe) are the way to go, they take next to none ressources to make (compared to solar cells), and have the same amount of output.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;28997622]There is "renewable" energy, but just not enough. I think solar collectors (aka a mirror heating up a fluid in a pipe) are the way to go, they take next to none ressources to make (compared to solar cells), and have the same amount of output.[/QUOTE] Solar energy is not renewable.
As a kid I always thought the big fans made the wind. :v:
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;28997415]Solution: Dyson sphere. A medium powered star can generate on the yotta-watt scale. That's uh, 10^24. Terra is 10^12. Obviously it's really hard, but that would power about... :psyboom: earths.[/QUOTE] Dyson spheres are overkill for anything short of a Jupiter Brain, even a Dyson Ring would be pretty close to overkill (not to mention the enormous material requirements to construct said sphere/ring, which would require off-planet mining and space construction techniques that currently don't exist. We're better off mining for Uranium on Mercury, or in the Asteroid Belt.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28997677]Solar energy is not renewable.[/QUOTE] No energy is really renewable. Eventually there'll be nothing left in the Universe but a tepid sea of burnt-out stars and the eternal, horrible black void.
Instead of coming up with a way to use different energy sources let's just keep using Nuclear power and find a way to get rid of the waste.
Just use the power you get from the wind to power a fan to make more wind!
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997714]No energy is really renewable. Eventually there'll be nothing left in the Universe but a tepid sea of burnt-out stars and the eternal, horrible black void.[/QUOTE] However, energy can never completely disappear, so there will always be some type of energy in some way shape or form. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] Wasn't there a breakthrough in synthetic oil a week ago? Why not look into that? That way, we don't have to remake all of our infrastructure to fit alternative energies.
[QUOTE=AgentBoomstick;28997741]Instead of coming up with a way to use different energy sources let's just keep using Nuclear power and find a way to get rid of the waste.[/QUOTE] You can thank the Green Movement for that, people who are quoted as saying the following about nuclear power: [quote] If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other." —Amory Lovins[/quote] And [quote]Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun —Paul Ehrlich[/quote]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28997787]You can thank the Green Movement for that, people who are quoted as saying the following about nuclear power: And[/QUOTE] Wow. I guess some people really do want to watch the world burn. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;28997748]However, energy can never completely disappear, so there will always be some type of energy in some way shape or form.[/QUOTE] True, but you won't be able to use it, due to entropy. The universe tends to disorder, and free energy tends to a minimum.
The sheer amount of financing it'd take to make any impact on the climate makes this a null point. Virtually every energy blueprint proposed has been a composite of Nuclear, Renewables and Fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28997677]Solar energy is not renewable.[/QUOTE] More renewable than nuclear
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28997860]More renewable than nuclear[/QUOTE] Yes, but not nearly as efficient or powerful.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997815]Wow. I guess some people really do want to watch the world burn. [/QUOTE] It's terrifying, they see the inefficiency of wind and solar as a [I]benefit[/I], and if nuclear power becomes cheap and plentiful it would mean there's nothing stopping us from growing and building to (in their opinion) the Earth's detriment.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997867]Yes, but not nearly as efficient or powerful.[/QUOTE] In what context?
I highly doubt we could ever build enough wind power plants to make the surface too "hard" to pass for wind to fuck up the climate if you consider how much easier we made it by deforesting huge amounts of space. Once you would build enough wind power plants, they would also become terribly inefficient due to the slowing wind, and the progress would stop. Not to mention that vast majority of the wind movement happens much higher above the surface, far out of reach of the wind power plants. I call bullshit on this whole thing. Nonetheless nuclear power is still the best source of energy we have now. Fission is already superior alternative to everything except for localized opportunities like space for efficient water dams and maybe enough sunlight for solar power plants on anyway useless space of deserts and such. And once we figure out H2 H3 fusion, we can completely ditch all other large scale sources of energy we have now.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28997860]More renewable than nuclear[/QUOTE] If we get into the topic of Thorium/U-235 reactors, then that's a moot point as the sheer amount of uranium/thorium we possess satiates almost every projection for energy consumption in the next thousand years.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;28997892]In what context?[/QUOTE] In the context that you'd need a huge land area covered in solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a single nuclear plant. It's possible to get lots of power from solar if you're willing to have massive solar farms (think 1% of the entire earth's landmass or ocean covered in solar panels for the whole of humanity's energy needs), and maybe it'll change a lot in the near future, but for now nuclear power has a much greater power density than solar.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997867]Yes, but not nearly as efficient or powerful.[/QUOTE] Well you have to consider how far away from the source we are
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.