|
Sure, and that's an important caveat -- that's why co-operation will be more important than ever, with towns and entire countries being able to share energy surpluses and being connected.
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
If nothing else, you clearly want this to be true, really really badly. Secretive behavior makes sense to a certain extent if you're trying to protect future profits, but the specific things he is hiding really don't. Consider: the fact that the thing is available for "pre order".... this means that the supposed secret sauce catalyst will be open knowledge, if he truly plans to ship units (I doubt they ever will). If the plan was, instead, to find some investors, build a massive power plant, and start exporting energy to everywhere around the globe... but keep the tech secret forevermore... then the secrecy would make a lot more sense. After the first billion dollars of profit, everyone would believe without needing to see.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Sure, and that's an important caveat -- that's why co-operation will be more important than ever, with towns and entire countries being able to share energy surpluses and being connected. The problem with non-nuclear renewables is that they're either not able to provide power 24/7 (solar, wind, etc) or are already being used right now and can't be counted for additional energy (hydroelectric power, especially in the western US ). No amount of cooperation is going to fix that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The problem with non-nuclear renewables is that they're either not able to provide power 24/7 (solar, wind, etc) or are already being used right now and can't be counted for additional energy (hydroelectric power, especially in the western US ). No amount of cooperation is going to fix that. Well we can load up on them to provide enough excess capacity in an area, but that does require having the proper setup to use it when there's too much coming in, or store it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The problem with non-nuclear renewables is that they're either not able to provide power 24/7 (solar, wind, etc) or are already being used right now and can't be counted for additional energy (hydroelectric power, especially in the western US ). No amount of cooperation is going to fix that. Nuclear is not renewable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Nuclear is not renewable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Efb, buthobbesmaster posted:Nuclear is not renewable. This is just semantics though, who cares about what word you use? The world's supply of fissionable uranium is functionally infinite, at least over any sort of time scale that humans are concerned with. You might as well say solar isn't "renewable" because the main sequence will expire in a couple billion years and the sun with red giant the Earth into plasma.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The global supply of uranium is inexhaustible in any reasonable time frame. Nuclear is renewable if you define "renewable" as energy sources capable of producing at or above current output levels for millions of years. Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. Renewable energy comes from energy delivered by the sun (directly or indirectly) or in the case of geothermal, the earth's core.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. The sun has a finite amount of fusable material too, is solar nonrenewable? The universe only has a finite amount of energy too. This is not a useful definition of renewable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. Yes let's not build reactors because we could maybe run out of fissile material in a million years.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. Then we would use Thorium, which is three times more abundant than Uranium. Then we would reprocess waste. Then we would mine uranium from seawater. If you want to get even more semantic then we could argue that uranium WAS delivered by a star going supernova, and is therefore solar energy. But I'm sure we don't want to get stupidly semantic, and instead will cede the point that nuclear power is effectively unlimited for all intents and purposes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
So why is energy from mysterious patented cold fusion atoms a-okay. But energy from real science atoms not? fake edit: Fossil Fuels/Hydrocarbons are indirectly from the Sun. That means that coal and oil are renewable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
It probably would have been better to call nuclear "zero-carbon" than "renewable" but it ultimately doesn't make that much difference.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 00:31
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just because our supply of something is near infinite compared to current or future use does not mean that it is renewable. There is a certain amount of uranium in the earth's crust, if we were to mine it all we would not have any more. Renewable is a misnomer, most energy technologies that are considered renewable are just those that do not consume a physical fuel to give energy. A better distinction between energy technologies is instead to consider it's 'true cost' versus 'apparent cost'. Fossil fuels have a low apparent cost, but are going to gently caress us over in the end so the true cost is higher (carbon sequestration notwithstanding, but that's a good thing because carbon sequestration is 100% fantasy greenwashing that will never be feasible IRL). Nuclear waste has to be disposed of responsibly, but it's not terribly improper to say that the true cost and apparent cost are similar. rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:23 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Nuclear waste has to be disposed of responsibly, but it's not terribly improper to say that the true cost and apparent cost are similar. At least that's the party line in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
So do you have evidence to the contrary or are you just here because you ate bad burritos?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:It's not Rossi's experiment, it's not Rossi's measurements, and it's not Rossi's paper. At least get your facts straight. If you claim that the experiment and the paper was not done by the authors, please say so explicitly. No one said that it's Rossi actually conducted the experiments or measurements. It's "Rossi's paper" because Rossi got together with some guys and asked them to make measurements and write a paper. This is a futile line of argument to take, are you really just arguing for the sake of arguing? The device in question is just part of a big scam BTW
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Can we please go back to talking about real energy generation instead of this steorn-type bullshit?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Can we please go back to talking about real energy generation instead of this steorn-type bullshit? Yeah that's not a bad idea. ... So no ones got any videos then (like the ones I asked about in my last post)? Come on, surely.. Went to a Food Waste to Energy plant a few days ago, this one: http://www.earthpower.com.au/ They take truck loads of food (still in packaging), put it through anaerobic digestion, and get gas and fertiliser out. I think a few pages ago someone said they went to a similar thing, in the US maybe? How common are they around the world? I asked about burning the gas, and the lady taking us around said they didn't burn it, they put it through an 'alternator' to get electricity. It didn't sound right, and further investigation on the website shows it's not right, but when I pressed her about it she assured us that wasn't the case. Weird. I also asked how much power it generates (in terms of MW, or kWh per year, or whatever), and she said she didn't really know either. On the website it says at full capacity it's enough to power 3,600 homes, which seems high, but whatever. Realistically, I see these things as more of a waste management strategy than an energy generation one, but it's good to see all these tonnes of waste not going to landfill. Sure, you can get methane out of a landfill too, but here you get fertilizer too. The main problem I see with it is that they don't really check the loads for contamination. After it gets dumped by the truck, all the material just gets put through a 'pulper', which is basically just a washing machine type set up, where it gets whooshed around a big vat of hot water for 30 minutes, which removes some of the bad stuff. But a lot still gets through, so the digestors fill up with contaminants, and they have to close them for 12 months and spend millions of dollars cleaning them, which makes it very difficult to make a profit out of them. Anyway it was a fun morning. Not sure if we're going to be able to use them in our business, but it's good to know what's out there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
So what's with people's love for solar PV? Everywhere I read about renewable energy, what people seem to be most excited about is the dropping price of photovoltaics. Personally I'm not convinced; for starters they require significant amounts of rare earth minerals to produce so that alone makes things difficult. I especially don't understand the logic of solar parks like this one:  That's a lot of lost green space that's necessary for oxidization and the local ecosystem, as well as carbon absorption. I understand building one of these in the middle of the desert, but why clear a forest for it? Now don't get me wrong, I don't think PVs are bad, they would be a great way to complement the existing power sources, by dropping them on top of warehouses or supermarkets, or anything else with a large roof. I just don't see the value of building an entire farm. Isn't wind ultimately the best renewable source (outside of hydroelectricity)to replace fossil fuels that we have right now? It doesn't need to be built close to the equator for maximum efficiency, and produces more power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Personally I'm not convinced; for starters they require significant amounts of rare earth minerals to produce so that alone makes things difficult. That's not really true. The most popular type of solar cells are made of silicon, which is a really abundant element--it is extracted from sand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That's not really true. The most popular type of solar cells are made of silicon, which is a really abundant element--it is extracted from sand. Can't dope silicon with silicon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
The dopants are used in trace amounts and most of the cell isn't heavily doped. The bulk doping concentration of a silicon solar cell is probably at most in parts per million. The two most popular dopants in silicon cells are boron and phosphorus, which aren't particularly rare elements. If there is a problem with element scarcity in silicon solar cells, and I don't think there is, it definitely isn't in the dopants. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:So what's with people's love for solar PV? It's a combination of things. Solar PV is what people see as "traditional" renewable energy. Solar panels are kind of a cultural meme for renewable energy for good and bad. They're a fairly decent proxy indicator for the health of the renewable energy industry in general. They're also a personal choice people can make for renewable energy - paying a bit extra on your bill for renewably sourced power or cheerleading large-scale renewable energy are certainly worthwhile but they don't have the emotional impact of sticking some panels that generate electricity from your roof, and that attitude tends to carry through. It's also, at this point, pure economics - the domestic market is driving PV investment which means, despite thermal solar being better for large-scale generation on a purely engineering standard, PV is cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:So what's with people's love for solar PV? Everywhere I read about renewable energy, what people seem to be most excited about is the dropping price of photovoltaics. Personally I'm not convinced; for starters they require significant amounts of rare earth minerals to produce so that alone makes things difficult. I especially don't understand the logic of solar parks like this one: Lieberose Solar Park was not built on "cleared forest". Lieberose Solar Park was built on the grounds of a former East German/Soviet military base, which actually dated back to Nazi times. So your assertion that its about clearing a forest is baseless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The bulk doping concentration of a silicon solar cell is probably at most in parts per million. I also ran into a USGS report which predicts some scarcity concerns with exotic solar panel materials (e.g. CIGS thin-film), but which concludes that any scarcity can be easily handled by recovering materials from retired PV cells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:So what's with people's love for solar PV? Everywhere I read about renewable energy, what people seem to be most excited about is the dropping price of photovoltaics. Personally I'm not convinced; Except imagine putting solar panels on every house, on every parking lot, and on all sorts of places. You could eventually over build solar capacity and combine it with new storage technologies coming online over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The dopants are used in trace amounts and most of the cell isn't heavily doped. The bulk doping concentration of a silicon solar cell is probably at most in parts per million. The two most popular dopants in silicon cells are boron and phosphorus, which aren't particularly rare elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:In terms of pollution generated relative to productivity, it's hard to do worse than semiconductor fabrication. Batteries apparently produce a fairly horrifying amount of toxic waste during production as well. At least in the US most batteries still aren't disposed of properly and are simply tossed in the garbage on top of that. IMO they really should start having the waste companies have a bi-weekly electronics/chemicals/battery pick up like most are starting to do or have already done for recyclables.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:So what's with people's love for solar PV? Everywhere I read about renewable energy, what people seem to be most excited about is the dropping price of photovoltaics. Personally I'm not convinced; for starters they require significant amounts of rare earth minerals to produce so that alone makes things difficult. I especially don't understand the logic of solar parks like this one: People love solar PV because you can't easily install solar thermal on your roof. Solar PV allows homeowners in many areas to reduce electricity costs. Lower PV prices means more market accessibility and even lower PV prices in the future
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Lieberose Solar Park was not built on "cleared forest". Lieberose Solar Park was built on the grounds of a former East German/Soviet military base, which actually dated back to Nazi times. That 'forest' definitely isn't natural growth, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:I also ran into a USGS report which predicts some scarcity concerns with exotic solar panel materials (e.g. CIGS thin-film), but which concludes that any scarcity can be easily handled by recovering materials from retired PV cells. Almost all solar cells are silicon solar cells. CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide) was supposed to be a competing technology, but it is a pretty low-performing one. Solyndra was a CIGS solar cell company. It doesn't matter that elements needed to manufacture CIGS solar cells may be scarce (I say may because there is a lot of hysteria surrounding scarcity of resources) because it isn't a relevant technology. PC LOAD LETTER posted:I've read before that around 600 tons of toxic waste are produced per solar panel made That's a little hard to believe. Do you have a source for that? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:In terms of pollution generated relative to productivity, it's hard to do worse than semiconductor fabrication. The actual dopants and silicon are nothing compared to the tanks of HF, HCl, methanol, Benzene, TCE, and arsenic that are flushed down the drains in the process. That has nothing to do with element scarcity though, which was what I was talking about earlier. I understand that silicon integrated circuit and solar cell manufacturing involves chemicals. While name-dropping a bunch of chemicals used in solar cell processing often works to scare the layman, it doesn't mean much out of context. A more precise thing to do would be to compare the waste and hazards of manufacturing solar cells to other industrial processes. Do you know how it compares to other industries? Also, I think they have replaced TCE and benzene with other solvents in semiconductor processing due to health concerns. I also don't think that elemental arsenic is a needed part of silicon solar cell manufacturing or is used in non-trace concentrations in integrated circuits. ANIME AKBAR posted:Have you ever seen a gallon of hydroflouric acid? It's loving terrifying. I have seen (even picked up and poured acid out of!) a gallon bottle of concentrated HF. It looks like a plastic bottle with clear liquid inside of it. It isn't terrifying. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I have seen (even picked up and poured acid out of!) a gallon bottle of concentrated HF. It looks like a plastic bottle with clear liquid inside of it. It isn't terrifying. Did you do it with horribly insufficient PPE, and for thirty minutes worry intensely about every drop of sweat* inside your gloves being HF about to eat away at your bones? Only to find out when what you set out to do with it didn't work, that you could have easily achieved the desired effect with incredibly innocuous materials in under 30 seconds? Yeah, that was a fun day. *An unfounded worry, you wouldn't feel the HF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
I would love to see statistics for how much of what chemical is being used per produced kW or MW of solar capacity. We can't really make a good assessment of the severity of that issue without knowing both the nature and the quantity of what's being used in fabrication. I'd assume there's large quantities of "stuff" involved per unit of capacity compared to other alternatives, but that's just based loosely on cost which can vary for many reasons. There is a lot of bad stuff being used in making solar panels: http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf But there's also much worse stuff being used in enriching uranium fuel, like chlorine trifluoride, which can ignite silicate materials like sand while producing scalding-hot HF steam and copious amounts of chlorine gas. For uranium, it's not that big of a deal because the amounts used are relatively tiny and controllable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:I would love to see statistics for how much of what chemical is being used per produced kW or MW of solar capacity. We can't really make a good assessment of the severity of that issue without knowing both the nature and the quantity of what's being used in fabrication. I'd assume there's large quantities of "stuff" involved per unit of capacity compared to other alternatives, but that's just based loosely on cost which can vary for many reasons. If you actually read your own report that you posted, it concludes that the only public health issue identified with crystalline silicon solar cell manufacturing is the lead solder in the packaging of the solar cells. When you throw away the cell, the lead can get into other things. I am not super-knowledgeable about electronics packaging technology, but I have heard that they are switching away from lead-based solders. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Radioactive decay is responsible for about 50% of the heat of the earth's core. Wait, really? Could you source that? I always assumed that pressure would be far and away the biggest source of heat at the core.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
So did Lord Kelvin, which is why he thought the Earth was at most 400 million years old (that is, he assumed that the Earth initially formed as a giant ball of molten rock and has been cooling since then). http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:Yes let's not build reactors because we could maybe run out of fissile material in a million years. You can fissile-sizzle a lot of things twice, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:48
|
|