• Wind and wave energies are probably not renewable after all
    244 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;29020779]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] When push comes to shove we will find a way. Besides we had heavy water plants back in WW2, I'm sure we can build modern better ones. [editline]7th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;29031160]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[/QUOTE] I have a better idea, we find a large abandoned area, and we make a massive slab of tarmac, asphalt or whatever delicious black rock floats your boat, and we run pipes through it, and flush the system with water. In the centre of the slab there's a big ass tower with a metric fuck ton of turbines in em, hey presto, power generated, and if you did it in the right area then you could bring rainfall to area down wind, so it could work well in some areas of Africa.
[QUOTE=Amplar;29026531][img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/7a03b5a3d81761b7938c0237182f9521.png[/img_thumb] yep[/QUOTE] thats how all news works, one person says something and it becomes an article :v: [editline]7th 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] bro that water vapor is actually 300000 degree nuclear death smoke, i saw it on :foxnews:
its pretty obvious that solar energy is the best energy. everything we know and do we've copied off off nature cept for that shit. more solar pronto.
Solar sucks ass, we need fusion.
As amazing as fusion is it really can't be considered as a replacement for renewables and fission, we could be waiting another century for it to be viable. I think the best solution would be decentralised power production from photovoltaics, roofs covered with solar panels that kind of thing, geothermal plants built wherever they are useful and fission as the 'backbone' of the grid. In the meantime we massively increase funding into fusion power. The current level of funding is abysmal, yet it's probably the most important piece of practical research we can currently undertake. Stuff like covering the Sahara in photovoltaics or other solar power systems would probably be as bad as what this article says about wind. You're going to be changing the reflectiveness of several thousand square kilometres of sun baked desert. That's going to fuck with weather systems.
If we pumped money into it then we could get it a lot faster, but alas the european project was killed after a bunch of governments using that train of logic went for the shitty short term solutions like wind wave and solar.
[QUOTE=bravehat;29034178]If we pumped money into it then we could get it a lot faster, but alas the european project was killed after a bunch of governments using that train of logic went for the shitty short term solutions like wind wave and solar.[/QUOTE] Oh hell no, don't tell me that thing got scrapped. According to the website it's still going.
[QUOTE=petieng;29033929]As amazing as fusion is it really can't be considered as a replacement for renewables and fission, we could be waiting another century for it to be viable. I think the best solution would be decentralised power production from photovoltaics, roofs covered with solar panels that kind of thing, geothermal plants built wherever they are useful and fission as the 'backbone' of the grid. In the meantime we massively increase funding into fusion power. The current level of funding is abysmal, yet it's probably the most important piece of practical research we can currently undertake. Stuff like covering the Sahara in photovoltaics or other solar power systems would probably be as bad as what this article says about wind. You're going to be changing the reflectiveness of several thousand square kilometres of sun baked desert. That's going to fuck with weather systems.[/QUOTE] Why do you think it can't be a replacement for it? What's wrong with fusion?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29035296]Why do you think it can't be a replacement for it? What's wrong with fusion?[/QUOTE] Nothing's wrong with it apart from not being able to get the funding for the experiments, is what he's saying.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29035305]Nothing's wrong with it apart from not being able to get the funding for the experiments, is what he's saying.[/QUOTE] ah, my bad. We should be using fission and a combo of renewables and geo thermal, reliance on nuclear but with a strong back up on solar and small wind and wave farms.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;29031053]Cover the whole Sahara with solar panels, it's not like that area has any use anyway[/QUOTE] Too bad about the power losses from having to transport that electricity all over Eurasia.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29035296]Why do you think it can't be a replacement for it? What's wrong with fusion?[/QUOTE] The major problem is it doesn't work yet! :v: And we can't rely on it working any time soon. We need to pump more money into fusion research, we just can't guarantee more money will deliver fusion power any faster and we definitely cant predict exactly when it will deliver. So I'm arguing that in the meantime we should develop power generation methods that are relatively long term (fission and a mixture of renewables) and fund the fuck out of fusion.
[QUOTE=petieng;29033929]As amazing as fusion is it really can't be considered as a replacement for renewables and fission, we could be waiting another century for it to be viable. I think the best solution would be decentralised power production from photovoltaics, roofs covered with solar panels that kind of thing, geothermal plants built wherever they are useful and fission as the 'backbone' of the grid. In the meantime we massively increase funding into fusion power. The current level of funding is abysmal, yet it's probably the most important piece of practical research we can currently undertake. Stuff like covering the Sahara in photovoltaics or other solar power systems would probably be as bad as what this article says about wind. You're going to be changing the reflectiveness of several thousand square kilometres of sun baked desert. That's going to fuck with weather systems.[/QUOTE] I listened to a lecture on particle physics and fusion just a few days ago, according to one of the the physicist [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER]ITER[/url] is supposed to return [I]alot[/I] more energy than is put in. Apparently the size of the reactor is closely related to the input versus output ratio, and ITEr will be the largest fusion reactor ever built. The problem is, getting funding and building these reactors take decades.
This guy is stupid, I mean look at this [quote]Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence [b]and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface.[/b][/quote] It was moderately believable until this point, but then I read that. Are you fucking joking?
[QUOTE=Inception;29061641]This guy is fucking stupid, I mean look at this Are you fucking joking?[/QUOTE] Yeah, because you know more than a scientist! I don't see why this doesn't work for you, unless you don't understand anything about entropy or thermodynamics.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29061688]Yeah, because you know more than a scientist! I don't see why this doesn't work for you, unless you don't understand anything about entropy or thermodynamics.[/QUOTE] uh fucking fans don't make the sun-shine dimmer
[QUOTE=Inception;29062136]uh fucking fans don't make the sun-shine dimmer[/QUOTE] didn't know that's what they meant genius could it be, that's not how they meant it at all? Protip, it's nothing about the dimness of the light.
Okay it doesn't matter fucking fans don't block out the sun, still retarded PROTIP: You are shouldn't believe everything you read because it is on the internet
[QUOTE=Inception;29069568]Okay it doesn't matter fucking fans don't block out the sun, still retarded PROTIP: You are shouldn't believe everything you read because it is on the internet[/QUOTE] I strongly suggest you find and read the article before you post again.
err, no. It wouldn't fuck up weather patterns. However, you need to keep replacing the equipment. And therein lies the rub - how much energy does it take to make a windmill?
[QUOTE=FlapadarV2;29069818]err, no. It wouldn't fuck up weather patterns.[/QUOTE] thanks Dr. Science
I read the article and I still see no reason that fans can make the earth receive less energy.
[QUOTE=Inception;29069568]Okay it doesn't matter fucking fans don't block out the sun, still retarded PROTIP: You are shouldn't believe everything you read because it is on the internet[/QUOTE] I'd go have a nice long read before talking or posting here again and nowhere does it say anything about fans blocking out the sun, what're you smoking? Give me some. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Inception;29071689]I read the article and I still see no reason that fans can make the earth receive less energy.[/QUOTE] Friction and thermodynamics doesn't make sense to you does it
Uh it does make sense, yeah the fans will reduce wind but it is in no way possible for fans to reduce the solar energy coming into earth.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29071153]thanks Dr. Science[/QUOTE] [quote]]Instead, we should be looking at how much useful energy - called "free" energy in the parlance of thermodynamics - is available from the global system, and our impact on that. [/quote] ΔG = ΔH - TΔS. Right, so free energy change is equal to enthalpy change minus temperature (K) * entropy change. Meaning this article is bullshit because the enthalpy change is massive, while the entropy change is 0 (There's no state change at all) tl;dr: This article is bullshitting you all. [editline].[/editline] Unless there's some type of "free energy" that isn't involving the chemical side of things. In which case I'll have just made a massive fool of myself. [quote]So by setting up wind and wave farms, we convert part of the sun's useful energy into unusable heat.[/quote] Right.. useless heat. Yup. [quote]"Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere," [/quote] No shit. Large-scale anything leaves an imprint in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Inception;29061641]This guy is stupid, I mean look at this It was moderately believable until this point, but then I read that. Are you fucking joking?[/QUOTE]Clouds, genius. Clouds reflect sunlight, changes in cloud cover changes the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface.
[QUOTE=FlapadarV2;29074924]while the entropy change is 0 (There's no state change at all)[/QUOTE] You're saying that the entropy change is zero because there's no change in state? Uhh... you can still have a change in entropy without change in state. In fact, I'm not sure I understand what your argument is at all. And the Gibbs free energy equation only works when the system is closed, which it isn't (the Earth's receiving radiation from the Sun). But yeah, I'm sure you know better than the physicist with years of experience and other physicists backing him up (see article). [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=FlapadarV2;29074924]No shit. Large-scale anything leaves an imprint in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] Wait. So you try to tell us that this guy is retarded and then basically say "fuck, it's so obvious that he's right" Man, just stop.
Hey guys. Can we stop pretending for one second that the world, nien, any country would even consider using wind energy as their main source of energy? Its just not going to happen until the output can justify the cost. Maybe we will replace some areas with renewable sources like wind, but it won't be a widespread do-all-end-all solution.
[QUOTE=Inception;29074616]Uh it does make sense, yeah the fans will reduce wind but it is in no way possible for fans to reduce the solar energy coming into earth.[/QUOTE] changing weather patterns, cloud cover, energy lost through friction, none of that could effect anything ever at all
Step one: say the article is wrong Step two: Enjoy the flamefest [editline]10th April 2011[/editline] BTW article is still bullshit. Maybe you should research the guy and the information before you blindly support something on the internet. I can dress up a shit in a labcoat and glasses but it is still shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.