Attractive Italian Viaduct Has Wind Turbines Built In (just kidding it's just concept art) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HarryG321;27832974]This is the way we need to be thinking. Breakthroughs in solar and wind power that make it cheap to produce solar panels and turbines, so that they are cost effective. We need to find a way of reducing usage and increasing efficiency of electronics. (Cutting down on the amount of street lights would be a good start)[/QUOTE] Nuclear fission is the way forward babeh

[QUOTE=xeonmuffin;27834452]Nuclear fission is the way forward babeh[/QUOTE] Personally I would prefer solar/hydro/wind power before nuclear until we find a way to significantly reduce and/or get rid of the nuclear waste that is produced.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27834521]or get rid of the nuclear waste that is produced.[/QUOTE] Chuck it into the sun, it won't mind.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;27834937]Chuck it into the sun, it won't mind.[/QUOTE] When I was younger, I had always wondered why we didn't throw all of our trash into the sun as it's one big furnace. Now that I'm older I know that the cost and trouble of that is horribly great.

It looks ugly.

One more step into a futuristic landscape.

Build a fancy bridge, or invest in nuclear fusion, I know what I'd do.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27834962]When I was younger, I had always wondered why we didn't throw all of our trash into the sun as it's one big furnace. Now that I'm older I know that the cost and trouble of that is horribly great.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.geekologie.com/2010/01/wheres_my_crash_helmet_man_pro.php[/url]

In other news: A mass death of birds has been found at the foot of an italian viaduct. All seemingly chopped in half mysteriously.

That came in second this came in first [IMG]http://www.newitalianblood.com/solarparksouth/projects/img/494-1.jpg[/IMG]

looks badass

[QUOTE=Contag;27832975]Correction: It should produce 4.5 megawatts, compared to your average coal power plant generating 500 megawatts. Hopefully it will go forward and not be prohibitively expensive, so that prices go down. [editline]4th February 2011[/editline] Why not place solar panels on the street lights? Street lights too small? Make the tops a big larger, people could stand underneath them when it rights. Doesn't really matter, what, as long as there is a market for the technology, it will be improved.[/QUOTE] There was an article a few months ago about a company that's developing pavement that works as a giant solar panel. [url]http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/solar-roadways-fix-the-power-grid-and-crumbling-pavement/[/url]

Covering the entire world in wind turbines and solar panels won't solve anybody's energy problems. As a civilization grows it need more and more energy; those technologies are so horrifically inefficient that they'd only be an expensive waste of time not far in the future. This is why fusion power is needed - not only does it release vast amounts of energy (mc^2) in each reaction, but there is a net gain in energy.

[QUOTE=Killerhurtz;27821924]Actually, we can't use watts because kw/h is a measure of energy, while watts are a measure of electrical power. 40 million kw/h is roughly 144 terrajoules, or 3.442*10^14 calories. So essentially, if we could put all of that power into matter, it'd create 1.6 grams of matter every year.[/QUOTE] that means that 0.8 grams (antigrams??) of antimatter would make same amount of electricity as that thing in the year funny to think about that

[QUOTE=Fippe;27837792]that means that 0.8 grams (antigrams??) of antimatter would make same amount of electricity as that thing in the year funny to think about that[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia]Scientists claim antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); and in 1999 NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only a few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for the other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss Francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions).[/quote] [quote]One researcher of the CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter regularly, said: If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes[/quote] If only...

[QUOTE=Turnips5;27817418]"40 million kilowatt-hours per year" WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST USING WATTS [editline]2nd February 2011[/editline] awesome concept[/QUOTE] Multiply it by 1,000. You now have watts. :science:

[QUOTE=Zeero;27833342]Tunneling through a mountain is expensive.[/QUOTE] Yes, but once finished it gives us free energy. Lots of free energy. Think of how long the tunnel would have to be. And now think of filling the whole thing with turbines. All of which are generating energy. Virtually the only upkeep would be oiling the machines. And you wouldn't have to rely on wind blowing like on the countryside. There will always be wind flowing through it due to the drastic change in altitude/atmospheric pressure. It's also very clean.

[QUOTE=Killerhurtz;27821924]Actually, we can't use watts because kw/h is a measure of energy, while watts are a measure of electrical power. 40 million kw/h is roughly 144 terrajoules, or 3.442*10^14 calories. So essentially, if we could put all of that power into matter, it'd create 1.6 grams of matter every year.[/QUOTE] You can't create matter. [editline]4th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GamerKiwi;27843968]Multiply it by 1,000. You now have watts. :science:[/QUOTE] You'd have to multiply it by 1,000 and then divide it by how many seconds there are in a year, cuz Watt = J/s

[QUOTE=mobrockers;27849194]You can't create matter.[/QUOTE] Especially considering electrical energy is matter.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;27849194]You can't create matter.[/QUOTE] He's not talking about creation. He's talking about Conversion. This very topic is the basis of a long running joke many people use to take the piss out of this guy in my physics class :v:

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;27819143]Solar panels works by converting heat energy from radiation emitted from the sun. Building them on the wings would cool down the solar panel, rendering it useless as a mean of producing electrical energy. [editline]2nd February 2011[/editline] Come on, this is basic physics.[/QUOTE] What? heat? This way the solar panels on a space ship would melt due to not being able to get rid of the heat. When a photon (light) hits an atom it takes one of the electrons circling it into higher orbit around the proton/neutron core. The electron then jumps back to its original state and emits a colour of light, that depends on the hight of the orbit it jumped from (higher orbit=higher energy = color higher in the spectrum) A Photovoltaic cell prevents this jumping back and harnesses the electron to be used as electricity (flowing electrons). So here you have it. No heat!

[QUOTE=theenemy;27852585]He's not talking about creation. He's talking about Conversion. This very topic is the basis of a long running joke many people use to take the piss out of this guy in my physics class :v:[/QUOTE] Eh sorry what, he really did say CREATE and not CONVERT, thank you very much for the boxes though, idiot.

takes away the natural beauty of the area

[QUOTE=Archy;27860542]takes away the natural beauty of the area[/QUOTE] Just like every road, city, every mark left by humankind amirite.

[QUOTE=Archy;27860542]takes away the natural beauty of the area[/QUOTE] I would like to think it adds a touch of beauty.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27862654]I would like to think it adds a touch of beauty.[/QUOTE] it just looks really bad against the architecture of the area it's like that hugeass pyramid thing they have in paris

Money and time come before the environment and looks.