Wind and wave energies are probably not renewable after all
244 replies, posted
Solar and nuclear are the (relatively short term) future! :science:
Maybe geothermal too if carbon capture and capture techniques for other nasty chemicals released from geothermal plants can work.
Was I the only one who thought about something like this in the first place? Putting big wave-to-energy generators all over the seafloor could interrupt the sea flow, it's not like you get free energy, you take the energy from something.
I say we all should pray for our power, seeing as god is allmighty, this would'nt be a problem for him right?
Fusion is the only solution.
Fission isn't. All Uranium on the world will last for a few years before it rans out (under the assumption, every energy-resource is replaced by nuclear power). Even Thorium is no long-time solution. But fission is nearly infinitely available (Ocean contains most necessary hydrogen isotopes)
[QUOTE=aVoN;29020671]Fusion is the only solution.
Fission isn't. All Uranium on the world will last for a few years before it rans out (under the assumption, every energy-resource is replaced by nuclear power). Even Thorium is no long-time solution. But fission is nearly infinitely available (Ocean contains most necessary hydrogen isotopes)[/QUOTE]
It's not that easy. It's a common misconception that fusion power is essentially free, sure you have the essential [i]hydrogen[/i] isotopes in seawater but they're not common enough. If all energy sources were to be replaced with fission, you'd have to start harvesting the isotopes from the surface of the moon where they are common.
[QUOTE=aVoN;29020671]Fusion is the only solution.
Fission isn't. All Uranium on the world will last for a few years before it rans out (under the assumption, every energy-resource is replaced by nuclear power). Even Thorium is no long-time solution. But fission is nearly infinitely available (Ocean contains most necessary hydrogen isotopes)[/QUOTE]
In the long term, yes, fusion is what we want, and will sustain us until the Sun starts to swell. But we should be using thorium reactors to bridge the gap between it and fossil fuels, wouldn't you agree?
fuck it
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;29020779]It's not that easy. It's a common misconception that fusion power is essentially free, sure you have the essential helium isotopes in seawater but they're not common enough. If all energy sources were to be replaced with fission, you'd have to start harvesting the isotopes from the surface of the moon where they are common.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean hydrogen (deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen) and there's fuckloads of it in the sea.
Fuck you're right I meant hydrogen yes
[QUOTE=aVoN;29020671]Fusion is the only solution.
Fission isn't. All Uranium on the world will last for a few years before it rans out (under the assumption, every energy-resource is replaced by nuclear power). Even Thorium is no long-time solution. But fission is nearly infinitely available (Ocean contains most necessary hydrogen isotopes)[/QUOTE]
Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium. It also has a greater energy yield, and its half-life is more than optimal.
solution: orbital solar plants, USE GIANT CABLES!!!!
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;29021751]solution: orbital solar plants, USE GIANT CABLES!!!![/QUOTE]
better start inventing those 35K kilometre long nanotubes
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;29021751]solution: orbital solar plants, USE GIANT CABLES!!!![/QUOTE]
They already do this without cables.
What do you think all those satellites did?
We have a solution and it's called nuclear power. Unfortunately, uneducated tree-humpers think that anything with the word 'nuclear' in it will give fish three eyes and can be blown up by lighting a cigarette next to it.
[QUOTE=redBadger;29022066]They already do this without cables.
What do you think all those satellites did?[/QUOTE]
what the shit are you talking about
satellites don't beam power to the earth
[editline]6th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;29022730]We have a solution and it's called nuclear power. Unfortunately, uneducated tree-humpers think that anything with the word 'nuclear' in it will give fish three eyes and can be blown up by lighting a cigarette next to it.[/QUOTE]
No, nuclear is not a long-term solution because uranium and thorium are nonrenewable.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29023337]
No, nuclear is not a long-term solution because uranium and thorium are nonrenewable.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/52172/spent-nuclear-fuel-actually-full-energy[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29023337]No, nuclear is not a long-term solution because uranium and thorium are nonrenewable.[/QUOTE]Breeder reactors solve fuel supply problems, and can be configured to use the far more abundant and less harmful thorium. Shouldn't be the future, but rather an interim solution until fusion has reached the stage of widespread economic viability.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29024006]Breeder reactors solve fuel supply problems, and can be configured to use the far more abundant and less harmful thorium. Shouldn't be the future, but rather an interim solution until fusion has reached the stage of widespread economic viability.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that was kinda my point (though I didn't quite write it down that way for some reason). We need to use the most practical non-renewable power source until we can create a practical renewable one. Though they may not be entirely renewable, nuclear plants can practically be considered as such simply because of the amount of energy they have the potential to produce. I'd bet any amount of money that we would have plenty of time to develop a practical, renewable way of providing energy.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29023337]
No, nuclear is not a long-term solution because uranium and thorium are nonrenewable.[/QUOTE]
We don't need indefinite, we just need an energy source that will last long enough to see humanity into space to mine for more materials.
Uranium + Thorium are likely more than capable of doing just that. Add in the possibility of extracting trace fissionable materials from seawater, and we have a HUUUGE energy supply.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29023337]
No, nuclear is not a long-term solution because uranium and thorium are nonrenewable.[/QUOTE]
How long-term are you trying to look? Uranium/Thorium would easily last us thousands of years, and by then we'll either be dead due to some environmental disaster/war, off this planet (and thus could easily get more uranium/thorium) or develop effective fusion.
[editline]6th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;29024978]We don't need indefinite, we just need an energy source that will last long enough to see humanity into space to mine for more materials.
Uranium + Thorium are likely more than capable of doing just that. Add in the possibility of extracting trace fissionable materials from seawater, and we have a HUUUGE energy supply.[/QUOTE]
God dammit GunFox.
[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]
Depressing.
So essentially we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;29025678]So essentially we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.[/QUOTE]
More or less. Ever heard of entropy?
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;29026502]More or less. Ever heard of entropy?[/QUOTE]
Yes. What I understand he is saying is that both forms, non-renew and renew both give off heat thus they will both damage the planet eventually. However I wonder if there is a tipping point: how many wind farms equal one coal plant. Or if he is saying that complete dependence on renew (something that will never happen) will be what damages the ecosystem not a few solar plants here and there.
TLDR: Is this guy saying the renewable sources which we have available today are already harming the environment or that continued growth in renewable will result in his predictions of damage to the atomsphere.
Nuclear Energy is great, it's only dangerous when the plants aren't built/updated to specific codes. Hell, I'm sure in the future nuclear waste will just be rocketed into space. It's expensive now, but once technology catches up to our need to traverse the galaxy it will be quite viable. Hopefully even by then we have Fusion Reactors.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;29029072]Nuclear Energy is great, it's only dangerous when the plants aren't built/updated to specific codes. Hell, I'm sure in the future nuclear waste will just be rocketed into space. It's expensive now, but once technology catches up to our need to traverse the galaxy it will be quite viable. Hopefully even by then we have Fusion Reactors.[/QUOTE]
Why bother rocketing it into space? I'm sure we'll have developed uses for the fuel in the future.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;29021751]solution: orbital solar plants, USE GIANT CABLES!!!![/QUOTE]
As crazy as this sounds, this is the only way we dont use up earths own resources for power. The problem however is that we pump a crapload of energy into the earth that would not be there without the orbital solar plant. (provided that the plant is next to the earth not in front of it)
It makes sense to use the earth biggest (and almost only) energy supplier for our own energy needs.
A study showed that a small dedicated area in the sahara or southern spain could theoratically power the whole of europe.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Spanjeafrikazonneenergie.png[/img]
Cover the whole Sahara with solar panels, it's not like that area has any use anyway
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;29031053]Cover the whole Sahara with solar panels, it's not like that area has any use anyway[/QUOTE]
The most efficient way to do it is to build them all over proportionate to the power demands
If we got even 10% of the world's power demands from solar energy it would make a huge difference
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.