Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people want it to be true, wind and solar power cannot give us a sustainable energy source.

Reasons?

Have you ever looked at a wind "turbine"? It's pretty much a windwheel that rotates, problems with it?

1. They take up an extrodinary amount of space.
2. Wind turbines turn very slowly, and for those of you who do not know, when the turbine inside of the windwheel turns it creates a small amount of electricity, thus there is not nearly as much electricity created when compared to a Coal, Oil, or Nuclear power plant.
3. What if there is no wind that day?

Solar power is also a joke.

Reasons?

1. The world's largest solar plant creates 10 Megawatts of electricity, your local nuclear plant creates 1200 Megawatts.
2. Solar panels only absorb a certain wavelength of light, meaning that only some of the energy from the sun is utalized, thus much of the sun's potential power is wasted.
3. What if it is cloudy that day?

While wind and solar power do indeed created electricty the amount that they provide or could potentially provide is so miniscule that it would have almost no affect on society's energy problems let alone be the sole providers of energy.

Wind and Solar power are wastes of time and effort to solve this energy "crisis." Build more nuclear plants and the problem will be solved.

Solar power research is inferno topic these days. I would say, since companies are bigger experts in that issue, that solar power is a none-trivial source.
Also wind energy is not neglectable. Apparently "home made" windenergy (no not farts ':-|) can provide energy in a household at a reasonable amount.

When production is rather low, energy can be stored in batteries and used later on.

At 1/1/09 12:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote:
It's by no means a worthless technology.

I don't think it's worthless, I just think that they are not the answers to our problems.

Oh you'll like this, I was reading an article in my paper today about this school that's getting a 1.28 Million dollar solar panel, this solar panel will save them $37,000 a year.

Well, if it costs 1.28 Million, and it saves $37,000 guess how long it will take for it to actually save money?

It will take about 34.5 years in order for it to pay off.

That's pretty economical wouldn't you say?

At 1/1/09 12:16 PM, physicsman09 wrote: The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people want it to be true, wind and solar power cannot give us a sustainable energy source.

Reasons?

Have you ever looked at a wind "turbine"? It's pretty much a windwheel that rotates, problems with it?

1. They take up an extrodinary amount of space.

The way they are used now they do, but the actual rotating part that takes up space is hundreds of feet in the air. If you mounted it right next to a house it wouldn't take up any more area than a large flagpole as the area it takes will be several dozen feet above the roof.

2. Wind turbines turn very slowly, and for those of you who do not know, when the turbine inside of the windwheel turns it creates a small amount of electricity, thus there is not nearly as much electricity created when compared to a Coal, Oil, or Nuclear power plant.

I know, but it still generates electricity so if you have a large number of them you will generate enough power. Some people have wind turbines at their homes and generate all of the power they need plus a little bit extra. Coal and oil aren't viable because eventually we will burn all of the coal and oil resources availiable. Nuclear is viable as even though uranium sources are limited, there is enugh uranium to last a very long time. However, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric plants can last forever as they don't use up non-renewable resources after the original manufacturing. Methane is also renewable and very efficient.

3. What if there is no wind that day?

They will use power stored from the previous day.

Solar power is also a joke.

Reasons?

1. The world's largest solar plant creates 10 Megawatts of electricity, your local nuclear plant creates 1200 Megawatts.

Again, just like wind, solar doesn't work well as a large plant. It works best when installed in individual homes. If you put a panel on your roof you can provide 100% of your necessary power, plus you will be payed by the power plant as you can put extra power into the lines. Again, nuclear is a perfectly viable resource.

2. Solar panels only absorb a certain wavelength of light, meaning that only some of the energy from the sun is utalized, thus much of the sun's potential power is wasted.

True, but there are dozens of research labs around the world that are trying to make the panels more efficient.

3. What if it is cloudy that day?

Even if it is cloudy you will get some sunlight, and you can use power stored the previous day.

While wind and solar power do indeed created electricty the amount that they provide or could potentially provide is so miniscule that it would have almost no affect on society's energy problems let alone be the sole providers of energy.

If created in the masses it could.

Wind and Solar power are wastes of time and effort to solve this energy "crisis." Build more nuclear plants and the problem will be solved.

What will you do when we run out of uranium resources? Nuclear power plants can also only be in one centralized plant. That means there is a lot of energy lost in the wires that run up to the houses, and it doesn't solve any of the problems with cars.

The best resource, in my opinion, is methane. Methane is naturally produced when feces or other organic matter decays. If not harvested that methane would be released into the atmosphere. So by burning methane you are actually lowering carbon emissions. Methane is already being used well on a large scale in factory farms and in the San Francisco dump.

There are also some bizarre ways that I am not mentioning int he following list. For instance there is a planned (not sure if it has been approved) design of a train station in boston that generates power by the force of people walking on the floor. I'm not mentioning them as they haven't been proven to be viable yet.

As far as home electricity goes I would rank the power sources like this.

1. Methane
2. Geothermal (if the environment permits it in the area)
3. Hydroelectric (if the environment permits it in the area)
4. Nuclear
5. Wood (still commonly burned as fuel but rarely used in power plants renewable and carbon neutral)
6. Wind (could be switched with solar depending on environment)
7. Solar (could be switched with wind depending on environment)
8. Natural gas
9. Coal
10. Gasoline
11. Hydrogen (it takes more energy to split the water molecule than you generate by burning the fuel)
12. Ethanol (see above)

Anyway, the fact remains that fossil fuels will be gone, considdering possible economic expansion, faster than is likeable.
So there has to be an alternative ready by then and in use as fast as possible.
Solar power and wind energy might do if we research it further, peak its performance and make the jump.

I don't know how renewable nuclear power is, but on this note I would agree that it is foolish to throw it away just because it is possibly polluting the world and 'dangerous'.

At 1/1/09 12:38 PM, physicsman09 wrote:

At 1/1/09 12:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote:
It's by no means a worthless technology.

I don't think it's worthless, I just think that they are not the answers to our problems.

Oh you'll like this, I was reading an article in my paper today about this school that's getting a 1.28 Million dollar solar panel, this solar panel will save them $37,000 a year.

Well, if it costs 1.28 Million, and it saves $37,000 guess how long it will take for it to actually save money?

It will take about 34.5 years in order for it to pay off.

That's pretty economical wouldn't you say?

I have never heard of a panel costing $1.28 million. Please show me a source on this. I have a solar panel on my roof about 10 years ago that costed me $10,000 and the energy it saved has already outweighed the cost of buying the panel. Schools use much more power than a home, but unless the school was the size of a small city they could simply lay out a hundred home-sized solar panels and produce that much electricity for less than $1 million.

At 1/1/09 12:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Solar power research is inferno topic these days. I would say, since companies are bigger experts in that issue, that solar power is a none-trivial source.
Also wind energy is not neglectable. Apparently "home made" windenergy (no not farts ':-|) can provide energy in a household at a reasonable amount.

When production is rather low, energy can be stored in batteries and used later on.

Yes. One of the best advantages of wind power is that it is very simple to make a wind turbine. Some people even create wind turbines themselves and put them on their houses.

At 1/1/09 12:48 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Anyway, the fact remains that fossil fuels will be gone, considdering possible economic expansion, faster than is likeable.
So there has to be an alternative ready by then and in use as fast as possible.
Solar power and wind energy might do if we research it further, peak its performance and make the jump.

I don't know how renewable nuclear power is, but on this note I would agree that it is foolish to throw it away just because it is possibly polluting the world and 'dangerous'.

Nuclear is not renewable but the amount of uranium in the world will last much longer than the amount of coal or gasoline. It does cause polution, but not nearly as big of a problem as coal or gas (although it is a much bigger problem than solar or wind.) But nuclear power is definately safe.

At 1/1/09 12:46 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
5. Wood (still commonly burned as fuel but rarely used in power plants renewable and carbon neutral)

Hmm, I would not mention that. Is it really renewable?
Yeah, trees grow relatively fast, but there is a high demand on energy over the globe. Energy is crucial for survival of the humankind these days. And wood carries the burden as building material and this sort of things.
Environmentalists are already concerned about how those classical demands force people to cut down the rainforests and these forests are crucial in the ecosystem of the planet. So using wood as a energysource would pressure this issue even further.

So it doesn't seem a feasible solution.

At 1/1/09 12:50 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

I have never heard of a panel costing $1.28 million. Please show me a source on this. I have a solar panel on my roof about 10 years ago that costed me $10,000 and the energy it saved has already outweighed the cost of buying the panel. Schools use much more power than a home, but unless the school was the size of a small city they could simply lay out a hundred home-sized solar panels and produce that much electricity for less than $1 million.

Here is your link.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/envi ronment/x2094347792/Pomfret-Officials-aw ait-news-on-solar-grant

At 1/1/09 12:57 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/1/09 12:46 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:
5. Wood (still commonly burned as fuel but rarely used in power plants renewable and carbon neutral)

Hmm, I would not mention that. Is it really renewable?
Yeah, trees grow relatively fast, but there is a high demand on energy over the globe. Energy is crucial for survival of the humankind these days. And wood carries the burden as building material and this sort of things.

There are large forests in Canada and Russia that are relatively uninhabited. If they were only used for firewood they could produce a lot of fuel each year.

Environmentalists are already concerned about how those classical demands force people to cut down the rainforests and these forests are crucial in the ecosystem of the planet. So using wood as a energysource would pressure this issue even further.

Never said to do it in the rain forest. I agree cutting down the rain forest is bad. Also, the biggest problem with cutting down the rain forest is that the cut down areas are mostly being replaced with cattle ranches. I want forests in Russia and Canada to be cut down and replaced with the same type of tree that is removed. I also never said Wood is the best thing. I said it was better than several other sources.

So it doesn't seem a feasible solution.

It is feasible as it can produce energy.

At 1/1/09 12:59 PM, physicsman09 wrote:

At 1/1/09 12:50 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

I have never heard of a panel costing $1.28 million. Please show me a source on this. I have a solar panel on my roof about 10 years ago that costed me $10,000 and the energy it saved has already outweighed the cost of buying the panel. Schools use much more power than a home, but unless the school was the size of a small city they could simply lay out a hundred home-sized solar panels and produce that much electricity for less than $1 million.

Here is your link.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/envi ronment/x2094347792/Pomfret-Officials-aw ait-news-on-solar-grant

According to that link part of the energy is coming from private donations. The site also said the energy will pay for itself within 10 years. That is how long it takes for most solar panels to start paying for the installment cost. I don't think that means it is not viable. It will start saving money eventually.

At 1/1/09 12:53 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Nuclear is not renewable but the amount of uranium in the world will last much longer than the amount of coal or gasoline. It does cause polution, but not nearly as big of a problem as coal or gas (although it is a much bigger problem than solar or wind.) But nuclear power is definately safe.

Nuclear power represents a convenient smokescreen for developing weapons, a dedication to redundant centralised power sourcing when what we need is localised renewable energy. It would, by the government's own estimation, provide only 4% of our energy needs by 2025 and offers no solution to the C02 impact of manufacturing and transport.

Instead, a new generation of reactors will create tens of thousands of tonnes of the most hazardous radioactive waste, which remains dangerous for up to a million years. It will establish new targets for terrorists, including nuclear waste trains carrying deadly cargoes along our public rail network for decades to come. It will keep the threat of a nuclear reactor accident hanging over us and risk the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. And it will render the public liable for the enormous cleaning up costs.

Investment in nuclear energy and its infrastructure is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real solutions - energy efficiency, renewable technology and decentralised energy. By decentralising our energy system and producing energy locally, the UK can meet its energy needs in a much cheaper, cleaner and safer way, slashing our climate change contributions.

Nuclear power is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Renewables can be developed and provide an efficient ,clean and infinite source of power

At 1/1/09 01:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I want forests in Russia and Canada to be cut down and replaced with the same type of tree that is removed.

That's just moving the problem to another location. A tree is a tree and if we're going to cut into the rainforest or into Canada, we'll ruin ecosystems either way.
We can replace trees, perhaps, but the scale at which these trees should be removed to provide a nation energy , it will be naive to think we can easily replace the same amount in new trees,which of course would take a while to grow into a new forest.
I don't know how much wood would be necessary to provide energy to a big city a year, though. I might overestimate it.

I also never said Wood is the best thing. I said it was better than several other sources.

It is my personal opinion, of course, but it's ranked above wind and solar energy, which would be much better for the environment.
Of course, I agree that the combination of the renewable options would provide the best alternative to the non-renewable energy option.
I'll stick with solar energy the most, though. Cause it is esthetic and can be laid out everywhere (walls, roofs, alongside the street,...)

At 1/1/09 12:16 PM, physicsman09 wrote: The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people want it to be true, wind and solar power cannot give us a sustainable energy source.

Agreed. I think that we need to acknowledge that wind/solar and nuclear serve different purposes. Nuclear plants generate a lot of power in a small amount of space

Reasons?

Have you ever looked at a wind "turbine"? It's pretty much a windwheel that rotates, problems with it?

1. They take up an extrodinary amount of space.

Well, yes. Generally speaking, that makes large solar/wind farms a poor replacement for nuclear plants - however in really rural areas there's an abundance of space.

Consider that in some parts of suburbia, people have hundreds of square feet of empty space. Why not put them to good use with some solar panels or a wind turbine?

2. Wind turbines turn very slowly, and for those of you who do not know, when the turbine inside of the windwheel turns it creates a small amount of electricity, thus there is not nearly as much electricity created when compared to a Coal, Oil, or Nuclear power plant.
3. What if there is no wind that day?

Well, those are the two big reasons why wind/solar can't replace nuclear. Wind/solar should be seen as supplements to nuclear power, not as complete solutions.

Solar power is also a joke.

Reasons?

1. The world's largest solar plant creates 10 Megawatts of electricity, your local nuclear plant creates 1200 Megawatts.

Yeah, but let's not forget that a lot of people put solar panels on their roofs or in their back yard - not as a main source of power, but as a supplement and a back up should the power lines go down. It's not like you can put a nuclear reactor on your roof.

Plus, if you could create a nuclear panel that could directly face sunlight the entire day, without moving, then you could get a lot more power out of solar.

2. Solar panels only absorb a certain wavelength of light, meaning that only some of the energy from the sun is utalized, thus much of the sun's potential power is wasted.

That's interesting. I'll be honest that I don't have the technical background to say just how much power is wasted, but I'm guessing that it's non-trivial.

3. What if it is cloudy that day?

Right. A lot of people talk about a smart grid, that can carry large amounts of electricity across a continent to deal with variable power output. But that seems like a really complicated way of trying to avoid nuclear power. It seems like just building nuclear reactors would be the solution.

While wind and solar power do indeed created electricty the amount that they provide or could potentially provide is so miniscule that it would have almost no affect on society's energy problems let alone be the sole providers of energy.

Wind and Solar power are wastes of time and effort to solve this energy "crisis." Build more nuclear plants and the problem will be solved.

This is all true. But I think that the benefits of wind and solar are independence - being able to generate some power at your own house if the electric grid goes down or civilization collapses.

I also think that a lot of liberals support wind/solar because they see it as a way to gain favor with rural audiences that traditionally vote Republican.

At 1/1/09 01:29 PM, glomph wrote:

At 1/1/09 12:53 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Nuclear is not renewable but the amount of uranium in the world will last much longer than the amount of coal or gasoline. It does cause polution, but not nearly as big of a problem as coal or gas (although it is a much bigger problem than solar or wind.) But nuclear power is definately safe.

Nuclear power represents a convenient smokescreen for developing weapons, a dedication to redundant centralised power sourcing when what we need is localised renewable energy. It would, by the government's own estimation, provide only 4% of our energy needs by 2025 and offers no solution to the C02 impact of manufacturing and transport.

Can you show me a source on this?

Instead, a new generation of reactors will create tens of thousands of tonnes of the most hazardous radioactive waste, which remains dangerous for up to a million years. It will establish new targets for terrorists, including nuclear waste trains carrying deadly cargoes along our public rail network for decades to come. It will keep the threat of a nuclear reactor accident hanging over us and risk the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. And it will render the public liable for the enormous cleaning up costs.

The EPA actually estimates that radioactive waste is only dangerous for 10,000 years. You are also very much exaggerating how harmful the waste is. Terrorists attacking trains with waste shouldn't be a reason not to create nuclear power, but just a reason to put better security on those trains.

Investment in nuclear energy and its infrastructure is a dangerous and expensive distraction from the real solutions - energy efficiency, renewable technology and decentralised energy. By decentralising our energy system and producing energy locally, the UK can meet its energy needs in a much cheaper, cleaner and safer way, slashing our climate change contributions.

That's true, decentralizing energy would be a good solution, but it is only practical to decentralize it with solar panels or wind turbines. All other energy sources are either impossible, or much less efficient, when decentralized.

Nuclear power is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Renewables can be developed and provide an efficient ,clean and infinite source of power

Nuclear isn't the best, but it is much better than fossil fuels. Solar and wind are still in developmental stages and aren't very efficient yet. Methane and geothermal are the most practical.

I honestly don't understand why methane isn't used more. Any organic waste can be used to harvest methane. Any city sewage processing facility or dump can be used to harvest methane. The technology needed to create the methane is very simple and easy to build.

At 1/1/09 01:34 PM, Al6200 wrote:
I also think that a lot of liberals support wind/solar because they see it as a way to gain favor with rural audiences that traditionally vote Republican.

How does this explain the fact that this debate is not restricted to America?
In my country there is no such thing as liberals vs republicans and this IS a major issue.

Quite cynically to reduce environmental issues to political bantering.

At 1/1/09 01:32 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/1/09 01:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I want forests in Russia and Canada to be cut down and replaced with the same type of tree that is removed.

That's just moving the problem to another location. A tree is a tree and if we're going to cut into the rainforest or into Canada, we'll ruin ecosystems either way.
We can replace trees, perhaps, but the scale at which these trees should be removed to provide a nation energy , it will be naive to think we can easily replace the same amount in new trees,which of course would take a while to grow into a new forest.

I didn't say wood should be the only source of power. You should only cut down all of the trees in Canada and Russia once every 20-30 years (don't cut down the forests all at once, but move throughout the areas over that period of time)

I don't know how much wood would be necessary to provide energy to a big city a year, though. I might overestimate it.

I also never said Wood is the best thing. I said it was better than several other sources.

It is my personal opinion, of course, but it's ranked above wind and solar energy, which would be much better for the environment.
Of course, I agree that the combination of the renewable options would provide the best alternative to the non-renewable energy option.
I'll stick with solar energy the most, though. Cause it is esthetic and can be laid out everywhere (walls, roofs, alongside the street,...)

One problem with solar is that although it requires no resources after the manufacture, you need refined silicon to make it. Silicon is in short supply so unless huge advances are made in the technology, you cannot power the world with just solar. You can make wind turbines out of anything which is why I rank wind higher than solar.

At 1/1/09 01:34 PM, Al6200 wrote:
Agreed. I think that we need to acknowledge that wind/solar and nuclear serve different purposes. Nuclear plants generate a lot of power in a small amount of space

Well, yes. Generally speaking, that makes large solar/wind farms a poor replacement for nuclear plants - however in really rural areas there's an abundance of space.

Consider that in some parts of suburbia, people have hundreds of square feet of empty space. Why not put them to good use with some solar panels or a wind turbine?

Even in dense areas of suburbia most of the area used by a wind turbine will be far above the roof of the house. The area a wind turbine takes up on the ground is relatively small.

Well, those are the two big reasons why wind/solar can't replace nuclear. Wind/solar should be seen as supplements to nuclear power, not as complete solutions.

I agree, there really isn't any power source (except maybe methane) that can be used entirely by itself. You cannot power the world with wind and solar, but you also cannot put a nuclear reactor into a car.

Also, although a nuclear reactor itself takes very little room, nuclear power plants need huge cooling ponds. When water goes through the reactor it is way too hot to be put back into the rivers so they need large artificial ponds to allow the water to cool.

Yeah, but let's not forget that a lot of people put solar panels on their roofs or in their back yard - not as a main source of power, but as a supplement and a back up should the power lines go down. It's not like you can put a nuclear reactor on your roof.

True. This is probably the biggest advantage of solar/wind.

Plus, if you could create a nuclear panel that could directly face sunlight the entire day, without moving, then you could get a lot more power out of solar.

That isn't really possible though. A panel would have to move to face the sun all day long.

That's interesting. I'll be honest that I don't have the technical background to say just how much power is wasted, but I'm guessing that it's non-trivial.

I don't know the exact amoung, but a solar panel only harvests a small portion of the sun's energy. However, there is research being done to make them more efficient.

Right. A lot of people talk about a smart grid, that can carry large amounts of electricity across a continent to deal with variable power output. But that seems like a really complicated way of trying to avoid nuclear power. It seems like just building nuclear reactors would be the solution.

Also, the biggest problem is the inefficiency of wires. A lot of power is lost through a wire across long distances. Not to mention the fact that there will be trees falling on the power lines, and there will be drivers that crash into the power lines.

This is all true. But I think that the benefits of wind and solar are independence - being able to generate some power at your own house if the electric grid goes down or civilization collapses.

I also think that a lot of liberals support wind/solar because they see it as a way to gain favor with rural audiences that traditionally vote Republican.

That is why they support ethanol (even though the refining of corn takes more energy than you get burning the fuel.) Corn farmers always support ethanol. Ethanol is only efficient in plants that have higher glucose contents such as sugar cane. Brazil is using ethanol from sugar cane with much success. However, ethanol from corn is ridiculous.

At 1/1/09 01:39 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/1/09 01:34 PM, Al6200 wrote:
I also think that a lot of liberals support wind/solar because they see it as a way to gain favor with rural audiences that traditionally vote Republican.

How does this explain the fact that this debate is not restricted to America?
In my country there is no such thing as liberals vs republicans and this IS a major issue.

Liberals also dislike nuclear power because they don't look at the issue from a quantitative perspective. They see "Wind Power - clean, environmentally friendly" and "Nuclear Power - mostly clean, but generates radioactive waste" and assume that wind power is a better solution. What they don't realize is that the quantities of radioactive waste are very, very small - and that nuclear power generates way more electricity than wind power.

Quite cynically to reduce environmental issues to political bantering.

Well, what country are you in? I'd be surprised if people who lived in the countryside didn't tend to vote differently than those in the cities.

At 1/1/09 01:57 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/1/09 01:34 PM, Al6200 wrote:
Agreed. I think that we need to acknowledge that wind/solar and nuclear serve different purposes. Nuclear plants generate a lot of power in a small amount of space

Well, yes. Generally speaking, that makes large solar/wind farms a poor replacement for nuclear plants - however in really rural areas there's an abundance of space.

Consider that in some parts of suburbia, people have hundreds of square feet of empty space. Why not put them to good use with some solar panels or a wind turbine?

Even in dense areas of suburbia most of the area used by a wind turbine will be far above the roof of the house. The area a wind turbine takes up on the ground is relatively small.

I was talking about solar panels, but your point about wind power is correct.

Well, those are the two big reasons why wind/solar can't replace nuclear. Wind/solar should be seen as supplements to nuclear power, not as complete solutions.

I agree, there really isn't any power source (except maybe methane) that can be used entirely by itself. You cannot power the world with wind and solar, but you also cannot put a nuclear reactor into a car.

You could power the world entirely with nuclear (cars can use batteries), but I don't think that that would be socially desirable. I like the independence of being able to generate some power at my own home, and be able to maintain a decent standard of living if for some reason we can't get power from the city.

Also, although a nuclear reactor itself takes very little room, nuclear power plants need huge cooling ponds. When water goes through the reactor it is way too hot to be put back into the rivers so they need large artificial ponds to allow the water to cool.

Don't some nuclear reactors have those big cooling towers that release the heat into the air as steam?

Yeah, but let's not forget that a lot of people put solar panels on their roofs or in their back yard - not as a main source of power, but as a supplement and a back up should the power lines go down. It's not like you can put a nuclear reactor on your roof.

True. This is probably the biggest advantage of solar/wind.

Right. Call me paranoid, but I don't think that we're beyond some catastrophic event taking down centralized power production/transmission - and I want to have some power in such an event.

Plus, if you could create a nuclear panel that could directly face sunlight the entire day, without moving, then you could get a lot more power out of solar.

That isn't really possible though. A panel would have to move to face the sun all day long.

Well, hypothetically you could use some funky mirror or light bending trick to always make the light face the panels. But as of today no such thing exists, and we don't really have a reason to think that it will exist in the future.

That's interesting. I'll be honest that I don't have the technical background to say just how much power is wasted, but I'm guessing that it's non-trivial.

I don't know the exact amoung, but a solar panel only harvests a small portion of the sun's energy. However, there is research being done to make them more efficient.

Yes, I'm curious what the theoretical upper limit is on how much energy a solar panel can absorb.

I've shopped for solar panels on the internet, they really don't produce all that much power. I mean, some $1000 solar panels don't make enough electricity to support a single PS3.

Right. A lot of people talk about a smart grid, that can carry large amounts of electricity across a continent to deal with variable power output. But that seems like a really complicated way of trying to avoid nuclear power. It seems like just building nuclear reactors would be the solution.

Also, the biggest problem is the inefficiency of wires. A lot of power is lost through a wire across long distances. Not to mention the fact that there will be trees falling on the power lines, and there will be drivers that crash into the power lines.

I wonder how far we are on developing effective superconductors (which literally have no resistance).

Anywho you can calculate the power lost in the wires with the equation:

P = (Current^2) * Resistance

This is all true. But I think that the benefits of wind and solar are independence - being able to generate some power at your own house if the electric grid goes down or civilization collapses.

I also think that a lot of liberals support wind/solar because they see it as a way to gain favor with rural audiences that traditionally vote Republican.

That is why they support ethanol (even though the refining of corn takes more energy than you get burning the fuel.) Corn farmers always support ethanol. Ethanol is only efficient in plants that have higher glucose contents such as sugar cane. Brazil is using ethanol from sugar cane with much success. However, ethanol from corn is ridiculous.

I don't see how ethanol makes a bit of sense. It seems like it would be much more efficient to just get the farmers to build solar panels and wind turbines, and then have that electricity charge up hybrid cars.

At 1/1/09 01:59 PM, Al6200 wrote:
Well, what country are you in? I'd be surprised if people who lived in the countryside didn't tend to vote differently than those in the cities.

Belgium. It's so small that there's hardly any distinction between rural and urban area.

It is true though, that the main proponents of theshut down of nuclear plant are the green party, for obvious reason (they want a clean world with a lifestyle as natural as possible).

At 1/1/09 01:37 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

::provide only 4% of our energy needs by 2025

Can you show me a source on this?

Im not sure if I can find where I read it but to clarify that includes all energy and is not limited to electricity of which it is currently providing about a fifth.

The EPA actually estimates that radioactive waste is only dangerous for 10,000 years. You are also very :much exaggerating how harmful the waste is. Terrorists attacking trains with waste shouldn't be a :reason not to create nuclear power, but just a reason to put better security on those trains.

Oh so only 10 THOUSAND years. Thats fine then. How can you possibly secure a whole network of transportation to some of the places uranium comes from. Thats just not feasible, and again its expensive. And how can you insure its safety. recently in the UK someone broke into a coal power plant and just turned it off. Thats one person. Can you imagine if that had been a nuclear power plant. In terms of risk its radioactive waste. Do I really need to say more?

That's true, decentralizing energy would be a good solution, but it is only practical to decentralize it with solar panels or wind turbines. All other energy sources are either impossible, or much less efficient, when decentralized.

which is why they should be replaced. The current system is something like 2/3 inefficient due to the way it is structured. to replace the plants with anything is ridiculously wasteful.

Nuclear isn't the best, but it is much better than fossil fuels. Solar and wind are still in developmental stages and aren't very efficient yet. Methane and geothermal are the most practical.

This is why rather than spending millions on systems that are inefficient, polluting, dangerous and incredibly expensive (£40.5bn just to decommissionin the UK) we should be investing in a renewable future. Geothermal is viable and brilliant technology and should be developed more.

I honestly don't understand why methane isn't used more.

Carbon Dioxide

At 1/1/09 07:03 PM, glomph wrote: Can you imagine if that had been a nuclear power plant. In terms of risk its radioactive waste. Do I really need to say more?

Of course, considdering terrorist threat, nothing can be really safe, seeing how everything can be bombed.

I honestly don't understand why methane isn't used more.

Carbon Dioxide

This might give some insight in that matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_rela ting_to_biofuels

At 1/1/09 07:03 PM, glomph wrote:

At 1/1/09 01:37 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

provide only 4% of our energy needs by 2025

Can you show me a source on this?

Im not sure if I can find where I read it but to clarify that includes all energy and is not limited to electricity of which it is currently providing about a fifth.

The EPA actually estimates that radioactive waste is only dangerous for 10,000 years. You are also very :much exaggerating how harmful the waste is. Terrorists attacking trains with waste shouldn't be a :reason not to create nuclear power, but just a reason to put better security on those trains.

Oh so only 10 THOUSAND years. Thats fine then. How can you possibly secure a whole network of transportation to some of the places uranium comes from. Thats just not feasible, and again its expensive. And how can you insure its safety. recently in the UK someone broke into a coal power plant and just turned it off. Thats one person. Can you imagine if that had been a nuclear power plant. In terms of risk its radioactive waste. Do I really need to say more?

Nuclear power plants have better security than coal power plants. No one is really worried about someone breaking into a coal plant and stealing a few lumps of coal. There is a huge concern about people stealing uranium, so the uranium is kept under a much tighter guard.

That's true, decentralizing energy would be a good solution, but it is only practical to decentralize it with solar panels or wind turbines. All other energy sources are either impossible, or much less efficient, when decentralized.

which is why they should be replaced. The current system is something like 2/3 inefficient due to the way it is structured. to replace the plants with anything is ridiculously wasteful.

I'm not saying to replace fossil fuel power plants, just to not build new ones. The carbon gasses emmitted and the energy used to create a new plant far outweigh the amount of energy saved by running a cleaner plant. However, it should be illegal to build a new fossil fuel power plant. Nuclear isn't the ideal, but it is better than fossil fuels. I would rather have methane harvested at dumps and sewage processing facilities.

Nuclear isn't the best, but it is much better than fossil fuels. Solar and wind are still in developmental stages and aren't very efficient yet. Methane and geothermal are the most practical.

This is why rather than spending millions on systems that are inefficient, polluting, dangerous and incredibly expensive (£40.5bn just to decommissionin the UK) we should be investing in a renewable future. Geothermal is viable and brilliant technology and should be developed more.

I agree, geothermal is a great solution, however it can't be used everywhere. Geothermal is only economically viable under the right geological conditions.

I honestly don't understand why methane isn't used more.

Carbon Dioxide

The methane is produced naturally during decomposition of organic waste. If we don't burn it it wil just be let out into the atmosphere. CO2 is emitted by burning methane, but that is better than the methane being emitted by the lack of burning it.

As far as terrorists using radioactive waste goes it isn't nearly as big a concern as you might think. Radioactive waste cannot be used to make a nuclear bomb, just a dirty bomb. The dirty bomb would spread the poisonous chemicals across far distances, but there are non-nuclear poisons that can be just as effective and are much easier to come by. Throwing a stick of dynamite in a drum of nuclear waste isn't nearly as effective as you might think.

At 1/1/09 07:03 PM, glomph wrote:

At 1/1/09 01:37 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

provide only 4% of our energy needs by 2025

Can you show me a source on this?

Im not sure if I can find where I read it but to clarify that includes all energy and is not limited to electricity of which it is currently providing about a fifth.

Really? 4%. Nuclear power provides nearly 80% of France's electricity. So if we can only get to 4% by 2025, it's for political - not technological - reasons.

Oh so only 10 THOUSAND years.

Actually, the most dangerous radiation decays the fastest, while the least dangerous decays the slowest.

That's fine then. How can you possibly secure a whole network of transportation to some of the places uranium comes from.

Nuclear reactors don't produce more than a few cubic meters of high level waste, so it's not like we're talking about truck loads of waste coming out of every facility every day.

In fact, if we're really that paranoid about losing the waste, we could just put tracking devices on all of the waste containers, and use armored escorts when moving the waste.

I think that's over the top, because frankly I think terrorists have better things to do with their time then go after a few barrels of high level waste, but that's just me.

Thats just not feasible, and again its expensive. And how can you insure its safety. recently in the UK someone broke into a coal power plant and just turned it off. Thats one person. Can you imagine if that had been a nuclear power plant. In terms of risk its radioactive waste. Do I really need to say more?

And turn off the nuclear reactor? What exactly would that do? Modern nuclear reactors have active and passive safety systems, so just turning off the reactor wouldn't cause it to meltdown.

As for stealing fuel for building bombs, we should remember that the US doesn't use breeder reactors, so the uranium isn't all that enriched.

which is why they should be replaced. The current system is something like 2/3 inefficient due to the way it is structured. to replace the plants with anything is ridiculously wasteful.

Nuclear plants still produce a lot more power than wind/solar plants of equivalent size and cost.

This is why rather than spending millions on systems that are inefficient, polluting, dangerous and incredibly expensive (£40.5bn just to decommissionin the UK) we should be investing in a renewable future.

Nuclear power is not inefficient (a lot of plants produce like 1300 MW). Compared to fossil fuels it is not polluting (it's not really even that bad compared to wind/solar). And it is renewable. In fact, according to Physics professor Bernard Cohen, technology exists that will make nuclear power last for billions of years (yes, I said billions).

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progr ess/cohen.html

Geothermal is viable and brilliant technology and should be developed more.

Geothermal doesn't seem all that bad. A few of the power plants I'm saying are producing electricity in the 1000+ MW range. But the problem is that there are only a few hotspots.

At 1/1/09 07:52 PM, Al6200 wrote: In fact, according to Physics professor Bernard Cohen, technology exists that will make nuclear power last for billions of years (yes, I said billions).

this is actually the main reason why I oppose shutting down powerplants. Someone says "Oh, nuclear material gives you cancer so it must be dangerous!" and then they propose to throw years of scientific progress and the whole of nuclear physics in the garbage bin. What to do with all the research and projects done around nuclear plants? And should we go back to natural medicine?

At 1/1/09 07:44 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

Nuclear power plants have better security than coal power plants. No one is really worried about someone breaking into a coal plant and stealing a few lumps of coal. There is a huge concern about people stealing uranium, so the uranium is kept under a much tighter guard.

I know that high level nuclear waste is stored in big concrete casks, so I wonder why they don't just put some sort of a tracking device on the interior of the cask - so that they know where someone is taking their stolen uranium.

The terrorist couldn't open the casks, because it would take a lot of time and energy, and because it would present immediate health risks. The only real option would be to put the cask in some kind of a metal building where GPS wouldn't work and weak signals wouldn't get through. But I'd have to imagine that by that time, we'd already have a good idea where the cask was.

At 1/1/09 07:52 PM, Al6200 wrote: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progr ess/cohen.html

Also on that website:

# Cohen neglects decay of the uranium. Since uranium has a half-life of 4.46 billion years, about half will have decayed by his postulated 5 billion years.
# He didn't mention thorium, also usable in breeders. There is 4 times as much in the earth's crust as there is uranium. There's less thorium in seawater than there is uranium.
# He did mention fusion, but remarks that it hasn't been developed yet. He has certainly provided us plenty of time to develop it.

Also, the concern about stealing nuclear waste isn't so much that it would be stolen during shipping, but that it would be stolen during storage. During storage they are left in concrete containers underground, with shovels and jackhammers you could probably steal the waste. To steal the waste from the shipping vehicles would require overpowering/eluding its guards.

At 1/1/09 10:17 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/1/09 07:44 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

The terrorist couldn't open the casks, because it would take a lot of time and energy, and because it would present immediate health risks. The only real option would be to put the cask in some kind of a metal building where GPS wouldn't work and weak signals wouldn't get through. But I'd have to imagine that by that time, we'd already have a good idea where the cask was.

Health risks aren't a concern for all terrorists. Strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing yourself up also presents immediate health risks yet terrorists do that all the time.