Wind and wave energies are probably not renewable after all
244 replies, posted
Thinking about it, CO2 released from cars is quite warm so when we have released all of that into the atmosphere from our cars/factories etc that adds a considerable amount of energy back into the atmosphere and in a way my theory is that it replenishes the energy we just took out of it using wind farms.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28997941]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]
Why exactly are Thorium reactors not common
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28997894]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.
I call bullshit.[/QUOTE]
People argued the same thing about fossil fuels and global warming.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28997894]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.
I call bullshit.[/QUOTE]
It said that if we were ever to get [I]all[/I] of our energy from wind/hydro, then it would cause climate change.
[QUOTE=Chopstick;28997948]Thinking about it, CO2 released from cars is quite warm so when we have released all of that into the atmosphere from our cars/factories etc that adds a considerable amount of energy back into the atmosphere and in a way my theory is that it replenishes the energy we just took out of it using wind farms.[/QUOTE]
Heat spread out thinly across the globe is impossible to harness so it's no use to us
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28997952]Why exactly are Thorium reactors not common[/QUOTE]
From what I remember, it's largely due to both funds and the technology doesn't exactly exist to produce large-scale energy (that's not saying the technology is far off, since I remember reading about a thorium reactor being constructed in India.)
[QUOTE=Chopstick;28997948]Thinking about it, CO2 released from cars is quite warm so when we have released all of that into the atmosphere from our cars/factories etc that adds a considerable amount of energy back into the atmosphere and in a way my theory is that it replenishes the energy we just took out of it using wind farms.[/QUOTE]
Waste heat != usable energy.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28997952]Why exactly are Thorium reactors not common[/QUOTE]
there are engineering challenges, such as building a container that doesn't corrode from the molten salt that the thorium is dissolved in. they did a trial in the 60s and the containment unit was corroded to hell and back after 3 years.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997943]greater power density[/QUOTE]
That's better.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28997894]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.
I call bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt things sometimes too
Have you done the calculations to back up what you're saying?
Also, just covering the deserts with solar panels isn't going to cut it either. Solar panels are black, which absorb more thermal radiation. This would heat the surrounding environment, causing an effect similar to CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28997952]Why exactly are Thorium reactors not common[/QUOTE]
Because back in the 1950s everyone wanted to make lots of nukes and thorium is no good for that, only the waste products from uranium reactors can be used to do that.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28998023]Also, just covering the deserts with solar panels isn't going to cut it either. Solar panels are black, which absorb more thermal radiation. This would heat the surrounding environment, causing an effect similar to CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the things mentioned in the article, we'll have to figure out how to reflect "wasted" light (if that's even possible) if we don't want that to happen.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28998037]This is one of the things mentioned in the article, we'll have to figure out how to reflect "wasted" light (if that's even possible) if we don't want that to happen.[/QUOTE]
huh, I ctrl-f'd "solar" and didn't see it
I didn't bother reading the article because I'd read it already actually
@Zeke a few posts up
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Technological_disadvantages[/URL]
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28998068]huh, I ctrl-f'd "solar" and didn't see it
I didn't bother reading the article because I'd read it already actually[/QUOTE]
Ah, it's not actually in the bit I copy and pasted, it's a footnote on the article on the website
"Even if solar cells like this are eventually built and put to work, they will still contribute to global warming. That is because they convert only a small fraction of the light that hits them, and absorb most of the rest, converting it to heat that spills into the environment. Sustainable solar energy may therefore require cells that reflect the light they cannot use."
I understand the of conservation of energy, but I really don't get how wind farms would ultimately affect climate that drastically. As I understand it, wind is caused by tides (put simply) and vice versa. The tides are ultimately determined by the moon's gravity, which is gravitational potential energy. Unless our wind farms end up pulling the moon out of orbit I can't see how this would have any lasting effect.
In addition to nuclear, what we should look into is getting a honking massive space elevator up and capturing the light that's normally pissed into the void.
Why do people even care. Everyone with a bit of insight knows that wind power plants are useless piece of shit in most cases and barely pay for their construction in most parts of the world.
[QUOTE=QwertySecond;28998149]I understand the of conservation of energy, but I really don't get how wind farms would ultimately affect climate that drastically. As I understand it, wind is caused by tides (put simply) and vice versa. The tides are ultimately determined by the moon's gravity, which is gravitational potential energy. Unless our wind farms end up pulling the moon out of orbit I can't see how this would have any lasting effect.
In addition to nuclear, what we should look into is getting a honking massive space elevator up and capturing the light that's normally pissed into the void.[/QUOTE]
nooooooo, wind is not caused by tides what are you smoking
Wind is caused by (roughly) the Sun's rays heating the ground and the convection producing pressure differences.
Well, obviously, to power up the whole world with wind and wave power you'd need to litter the coastlines and the oceans with that shit.
Now what happens to wind when you cover the Earth with turbines? That's right little timmy, it stops!
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;28998377]Well, obviously, to power up the whole world with wind and wave power you'd need to litter the coastlines and the oceans with that shit.
Now what happens to wind when you cover the Earth with turbines? That's right little timmy, it stops![/QUOTE]
Then what will the hippies do? Lol. Nuclear power is still, our only energy solution. No one can defeat this.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;28998377]Well, obviously, to power up the whole world with wind and wave power you'd need to litter the coastlines and the oceans with that shit.
Now what happens to wind when you cover the Earth with turbines? That's right little timmy, it stops![/QUOTE]
cept it doesn't, read the article damnit
as outlined by the scientist/engineer jaque fresco 30 years ago, we only need geothermal energy to power the entire planet. everything else is really unnecessary
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
including nuclear damnit
I've always wondered, does using solar energy drain the sun faster? And does using geothermal energy drain the core?
[QUOTE=Explosions;28998536]I've always wondered, does using solar energy drain the sun faster? And does using geothermal energy drain the core?[/QUOTE]
no and no, the heat is dissipated regardless. also due to the laws of thermodynamics, even if the energy is used, its not "lost" its redirected.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;28998568]no and no, the heat is dissipated regardless. also due to the laws of thermodynamics, even if the energy is used, its not "lost" its redirected.[/QUOTE]
OK that's what I thought anyway but what about this: would using solar energy on a massive scale make the world colder?
whats really rediculous about this news post is that the earth itself is a solar panel and the earth's surface provides friction enough to slow wind. saying it can be "used up" is rediculous as the sun supplies the currents themselves, and untill the sun is used up in a few billion years, we are fine.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;28998586]OK that's what I thought anyway but what about this: would using solar energy on a massive scale make the world colder?[/QUOTE]
most of the light is just redirected back out into space anyway, i doubt it. maybe if you like, covered the entire planet :P
actually, it would heat the earth up. many solar farms use heat transfer and mirrors instead of "panels" it just means more heat stays on earth instead of going into space
This totally went right over my head.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Could someone explain what the guy from the OP was talking about? In depth?
[QUOTE=Killy_Mcgee;29000167]Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Could someone explain what the guy from the OP was talking about? In depth?[/QUOTE]
In essence, if we were to take the amount of energy that corresponds to global human consumption, and apply it to wind power (i.e. we took that amount of energy out of the atmosphere every year), then that would have nasty consequences for global weather patterns (due to the lost energy). It would mean that certain natural processes such as precipitation and wind directions would be changed, and possibly would actually heat the Earth up a lot (due to inefficiencies in every system producing heat).
[QUOTE=Turnips5;28997214]I hope you guys aren't going to rate the article dumb because it disagrees with your preconceptions of "wind is real strong, and it keeps coming like, forever"[/QUOTE]
No, but I'd like to see scientific proof first.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29000297]In essence, if we were to take the amount of energy that corresponds to global human consumption, and apply it to wind power (i.e. we took that amount of energy out of the atmosphere every year), then that would have nasty consequences for global weather patterns (due to the lost energy). It would mean that certain natural processes such as precipitation and wind directions would be changed, and possibly would actually heat the Earth up a lot.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a team of everything, this is just one physicist who's saying, "In theory."
[QUOTE=Swilly;29000375]No, but I'd like to see scientific proof first.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
This isn't a team of everything, this is just one physicist who's saying, "In theory."[/QUOTE]
Fair point. The thing is, his hypothesizing relies on one of the most reliable and well-understood concepts - thermodynamics. And other scientists have been taking his research seriously, as you'd know if you read the article.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.