|
Kafka Esq. posted:You're thinking of the Canadian Shield, I guess? Out west is not so bad, although I wonder if permafrost turns into good soil when it melts. It'd turn into a marshy/swampy area that, if drained, might be ok for farming eventually. But that would take probably fifty years. As I said before, Canada is paving over its farmland anyway, and we have a tiny percentage of Class 1 farmland. Everything else is limited to what it can grow.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Does he really claim it to be be most? I guess hydrogen sulfide is credible enough to at least be taken seriously for the Permian extinction, but unless I've missed a lot of recent revelations (which is always possible, I suppose), I thought geologic changes and asteroid impacts were still the preferred explanation for the rest of the big five. Yeah, all but the K-T extinction basically. When Alvarez figured out that a space rock killed the dinos everybody just assumed that space rocks caused EVERY extinction, since previously nobody had any explanation at all for mass extinction kill mechanisms. As detailed in Ward's book Under a Green Sky, people spread out over the world looking for space rock evidence for other extinctions and found zilch (other than some faked data out of China iirc), but Ward eventually found that almost every time a bunch of stuff died, the oceans were anoxic. The dinos were the exception to the norm. He dug in the dirt looking at rocks and bones to figure this out, and his students these days are apparently backing up his findings with chemical analyses of old microbes. I checked out a few videos online of talks he's given under the title Under a Green Sky so I could link something but they were a mediocre hodge-podge of tangents and AGW proselytizing loosely hung on the skeleton of his research; I did find a very short interview (conducted by Neil deGrasse Tyson!) here that sums up what he's learned. As for this not being relevant today just because the Siberian Traps are being lazy, who the gently caress cares? Do you really think that humanity doesn't possess the power to hit the tipping points in a geologically miniscule period of time? The whole jist of Ward's findings is that oxygen breathers have regularly gotten hosed over, a dozen plus times already, whenever the climate gets a bit too warm. Just because you and your kids will be dead next time it happens is no reason to be flippant about timescales. I have no idea what 2175 scenario you're talking about, and a zero effort "Peter Ward 2175" google search did nothing to enlighten me.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:02
|
|
Slarlid posted:I have no idea what 2175 scenario you're talking about, and a zero effort "Peter Ward 2175" google search did nothing to enlighten me. http://qvinstitute.org/fileadmin/QVI/images/images_qvi/Dyer-ClimateWars_Abstract_.pdf quote:Scenario Eight: Wipeout, the extinction of humanity could happen
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Ah, ok. I haven't read Gwinne Dyer's Climate Wars. There's no mention of the specific year 2175 in Under a Green Sky, but the last chapter of the book features three speculative scenarios of what the world could be like at either 450ppm, 700ppm and 1100ppm. The 1100ppm scenario features the discombobulation of the conveyor belt current system, with the ocean bottoms beginning to become anoxic.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Is there any chatter going on about Solar Roadways? This is more of an information seeking post than an informative one; I just caught a video about it and was immediately intrigued. I'm not at all knowledgeable about this sort of thing, but on its face it certainly sounds like an awesome idea. Any reasons this is totally bunk? e: I can come up with some myself but since I have no earthly idea any of the myriad factors that would go into this, I have no idea how right or wrong they would be mareep fucked around with this message at 21:12 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
redcheval posted:Is there any chatter going on about Solar Roadways? This is more of an information seeking post than an informative one; I just caught a video about it and was immediately intrigued. I'm not at all knowledgeable about this sort of thing, but on its face it certainly sounds like an awesome idea. Any reasons this is totally bunk? It's expensive as gently caress and replacement is going to be a bitch. It's not a bad idea, mind you, just one that will likely never materialize because of the difficulties of implementation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:It's expensive as gently caress and replacement is going to be a bitch. It's not a bad idea, mind you, just one that will likely never materialize because of the difficulties of implementation. I would much rather see them just build covered parking lots where the roof is made out of solar panels anyway. That way you don't get the blistering hot parking lot and you can generate tons of power.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:It's expensive as gently caress and replacement is going to be a bitch. It's not a bad idea, mind you, just one that will likely never materialize because of the difficulties of implementation. To be fair, isn't "will be a bitch to implement" basically applicable to every sort of clean energy revolution? Are solar roadways really inferior to other such proposals in that regard?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:To be fair, isn't "will be a bitch to implement" basically applicable to every sort of clean energy revolution? Are solar roadways really inferior to other such proposals in that regard? You may be right about that, but it will be much more visibly a bitch to implement because people interact with road work all the time, and they hate it. Why would they willingly subject themself to it like this?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:You may be right about that, but it will be much more visibly a bitch to implement because people interact with road work all the time, and they hate it. Why would they willingly subject themself to it like this? ...Hm. My best answer was 'because it could produce an unprecedented volume of clean energy,' but pfft.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:To be fair, isn't "will be a bitch to implement" basically applicable to every sort of clean energy revolution? Are solar roadways really inferior to other such proposals in that regard?  Solar and wind are approaching feasibility on a pure $/kw basis, but only in certain regions, and you need to basically redesign the grid to accommodate them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Slarlid posted:Ah, ok. I haven't read Gwinne Dyer's Climate Wars. There's no mention of the specific year 2175 in Under a Green Sky, but the last chapter of the book features three speculative scenarios of what the world could be like at either 450ppm, 700ppm and 1100ppm. The 1100ppm scenario features the discombobulation of the conveyor belt current system, with the ocean bottoms beginning to become anoxic. Just wanted to say, I purchased Climate Wars last night based on discussion in this thread. It's a quick read and very interesting, highly recommended as a nice blend of discussion about the science along with potential political scenarios resulting from climate change.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:To be fair, isn't "will be a bitch to implement" basically applicable to every sort of clean energy revolution? Are solar roadways really inferior to other such proposals in that regard? One of the biggest issues with solar power, and why stuff like solar roofing and solar roads are coming up, is that solar power is loving huge. Yes it's clean once you get past the production of the cells, it's renewable until the sun explodes, and fairly easy to maintain once it's put up but the problem is, generating solar power on any appreciable scale ends up taking up a lot of space. The idea is that you make things dual purpose. If it's a road and a solar collector then you just freed up a poo poo load of space for solar collection because of how many roads there are.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
A solar roadway seems, at least to me personally, a little too sci-fi-pipe-dreamy. These are surfaces that are going to be durable to traffic and freight, and be some sort of translucent plastic that lets light through to the photovoltaic layer? What does the maintenance on that even look like? How often are you having to thoroughly clean these expansive surfaces that people are driving on continuously? I know that even just with normal cells and mirrors, a little layer of dirt will drastically reduce the efficiency of power generation, and the idea is to be sending tires over these? I can see it for buildings, parking structures and all manner of surfaces that aren't being shared with traffic, but for roads it seems like such an impractical undertaking. We have plenty of useless space out in West Texas and other desert areas; I can imagine an improved grid and fields of panels in places that nobody wants to live before I see some sort of solar roadway.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Solar and wind are approaching feasibility on a pure $/kw basis, but only in certain regions, and you need to basically redesign the grid to accommodate them. Until you notice your country has next to no storage or buffer capacity (see: Germany).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 08:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
quote:The notoriously anti-science House Science Committee has hit a new low, voting on Thursday to approve a spending bill amendment that “would prohibit defense spending on climate change research and the social cost of carbon analysis.” Translated: The Pentagon is being ordered to ignore climate science. I have to assume the Senate will block this and this is one of those bills the House passes just to make a point, right? I have to believe that even climate deniers will pause when it comes to crippling their own military.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Climate change is really high on Obama's list of poo poo he wants to do. Even if it got through the senate (it won't) he'd veto it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
RE: Solar Roadway - there's another option, I think. Rather than photovoltaic cells, what about an integrated piezoelectric system? Israel even tested it, with a 10 meter strip of roadway that generated 2 kilowatt-hours of power. Hell, you might even be able to combine the two together. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:What does the maintenance on that even look like? How often are you having to thoroughly clean these expansive surfaces that people are driving on continuously? Self-healing plastics are also in development. And no one is acting like energy-generating, self-healing highways will end global warming single-handedly so all options need to be considered. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 23:54 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Self-cleaning solar panels exist. They use a slight electrostatic charge to repel dust. It's like the opposite of having your hair stand up when you rub a balloon against your head. What's the carbon footprint ROI of solar panels? I know they're pretty messy to make but no real sense of how long it takes to have solar panels be worth it, for an environmental perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's the carbon footprint ROI of solar panels? I know they're pretty messy to make but no real sense of how long it takes to have solar panels be worth it, for an environmental perspective. http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk Tl;dr a solar panel will pay back the energy it took to make it in 2.5 years under UK conditions (which are really bad for solar) based on 2004-2006 PV models. Here's a more in-depth and current article: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf America Inc. fucked around with this message at 01:33 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
I think there's a scale that has to be taken into account when you consider using roadways as solar panels. They don't need to be terribly efficient since there's so much road in the US. On the other hand a piezo-electric or thermo-electric generation system built into the road surface multiplied by the sheer mileage of road we've got could produce useful power.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think there's a scale that has to be taken into account when you consider using roadways as solar panels. They don't need to be terribly efficient since there's so much road in the US. On the other hand a piezo-electric or thermo-electric generation system built into the road surface multiplied by the sheer mileage of road we've got could produce useful power. E: Going off into far-off territory here, but I wonder if some of the energy generated by these roads could be used to trap carbon and water car byproducts and make carbohydrates. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
I think there's an issue with transmitting the power that makes it less effective in more rural areas. I can see piezoelectric working within cities where the power can be used immediately, but I think there will be an issue with collecting and redistributing power from a widespread network.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
TACD posted:I have to assume the Senate will block this and this is one of those bills the House passes just to make a point, right? I have to believe that even climate deniers will pause when it comes to crippling their own military. Like these subhuman traitors give a gently caress about our military.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think both sides politicize. Aside from the climate debate, the left is generally about larger government and the right is generally about smaller government. Likewise, larger government could be achieved by tackling climate change with a top-down approach <SNIP> Yo wrong site. Prison planet is the black forum. This is the blue one.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
The Solar Roadways project has been funded, thanks in part I imagine to this video which went incredibly viral https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Arkane posted:What you just typed could not possibly be further from the truth. To be absolutely, crystal clear: you have no clue what you are talking about. Many of the lead authors of the IPCC report are meteorologists. Don't trust me on that, check yourself. It is not a "related" field to the climate debate, it is one of the most vital fields. The Max Planck Institute is world-renowned. The idea that he cannot comment on climate sensitivity is laughable. He's been working in the field for decades. And guess what? The AR5 lead author on the climate model chapter works for the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Jochem Marotzke.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:To be fair, isn't "will be a bitch to implement" basically applicable to every sort of clean energy revolution? Are solar roadways really inferior to other such proposals in that regard? No, not at all- nuclear energy is proven and wouldn't be much more expensive. The science is done, we know how to scale it, and we know how to fuel it and run it at near the same cost as fossil fuel solutions. So yes, this thing that only exists on paper and has never been tested is much worse than other things that already exist. Spiritus Nox posted:...Hm. Depending on the manufacture process solar energy is hardly 'clean'. Makes sense it was one of googles "moonshots", the whole thing sounds incredibly pie in the sky - we can barely make dedicated solar panels that break even w/o subsidies in 'good' conditions. And 'unprecedented volume of energy' is incredibly optimistic- there's a reason solar is a whole .25% of our total energy (and it's probably going to be incredibly expensive vs. existing sources). Notorious QIG posted:It's expensive as gently caress and replacement is going to be a bitch. It's not a bad idea, mind you, just one that will likely never materialize because of the difficulties of implementation. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like a terrible idea, actually. Roads that are actually near civilization are at least partially (often completely) obscured during the day, pretty much the complete opposite of what you would want for solar. It's like, "I know, where is the least sensical place to put a solar panel. Hmm, how about a parking lot that's often covered when the sun is actually out. Genius!" Plus the completely obvious thing that you are putting expensive technology into something that's going to be torn up every 2-5 years (and unless they have an incredibly novel solution the efficiency will nosedive after the first winter as it gets beat to hell with trucks and road salt. Like there's a million places that make more sense to put panels than a road. Maybe there's some niche applications but even if they produce a product I would be shocked if it saw wide scale implementation. It's basically the same story as all these other 'solutions' we see for cc. They are the things you would see in the popular science magazines- even if they are good ideas they are decades out, are completely unproven and will probably be massively more expensive than what we have now. But we already have a ready to go proven solution for providing all the energy we could want! Solar is dirtier, more dangerous, more expensive, non-baseline (and very hard to store) than nuclear energy. FAUXTON posted:I think there's a scale that has to be taken into account when you consider using roadways as solar panels. They don't need to be terribly efficient Of course they do! Well they at least need to be cost efficient, but that's usually the same thing anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
enbot posted:Of course they do! Well they at least need to be cost efficient, but that's usually the same thing anyway. How's the price scale with solar collector efficiency?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
The solar roadways thing seems hilariously over engineered. They want it to collect AND store energy, transmit electricity to cars passing on them, provide lighting, contain sensors to detect animals, provide heating to remove snow and also run transmission cables in a space under it. Right. These roads are going to be outdone in cost only by maglev but it does look very utopian sci fi future. Creating white asphalt would probably do more to mitigate climate change although I suppose that's not their primary purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
So... Solar roadways. Neat idea, but I'd like to see the whole thing tested on a heavily used road. Not to mention solar panels need to be replaced every 20-30 years, so at least any possible current generation of solar roads will need to be torn up completely every 20-30 years. Overall, I'm not in favour of making basic infrastructure needlessly "smart" (read: needlessly complex) because of the fact that it is basic infrastructure. Slightly lower efficiency doesn't matter as long as electricity is CO2 neutral - nuclear power is a thing and even building a roof over roads to put solar panels on is less over the top.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Neat idea, but I'd like to see the whole thing tested on a heavily used road. Not to mention solar panels need to be replaced every 20-30 years, so at least any possible current generation of solar roads will need to be torn up completely every 20-30 years. You'll be pulling them up more often than that due to surface wear, but it's not really the huge endeavour it sounds like since these are separate tiles rather than a dug-in continuous surface like tarmac. Also putting a roof over roads is dumb because a) if it's light enough to be cost effective then the first stiff breeze will do a real number on it, b) arbitrary height limit on almost all roads instead of just ones with bridges/tram lines, and c) flyovers were a complete disaster for pedestrians, and I can't really see this being any different. Like, it's probably possible to engineer a road covering that's robust, captures enough light to be worthwhile, but also lets enough light through to not severely depress everyone who has to go under the thing, but not on the cheap (and these things are always on the cheap, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough money left over to give to the shareholders of the private contractor hired to build it).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
I was wondering why the hell we were talking about solar roadways all of the sudden, I didn't realize it was because of some Konyesque video going around about it. Makes sense I guess.Anosmoman posted:The solar roadways thing seems hilariously over engineered. They want it to collect AND store energy, transmit electricity to cars passing on them, provide lighting, contain sensors to detect animals, provide heating to remove snow and also run transmission cables in a space under it. Right. These roads are going to be outdone in cost only by maglev but it does look very utopian sci fi future. These are kind of my thoughts exactly. Solar panels are great and all it just seems like there is a ton of better places to put them before we consider putting them on roads as the roads themselves. Hell, put them on sturdy poles next to the roads or in the median the way they're installed in empty fields, you don't even need a roofed road or anything. K.I.S.S. and all that. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 12:31 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So... Solar roadways. I have hard time believing these would last anywhere near 20-30 years even on less used roadways. Asphalt road eg. is full of potholes in less than 10 years. Even if the surface material of these solar panels was more durable they have the added flaw of being full of electronics.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Zilkin posted:I have hard time believing these would last anywhere near 20-30 years even on less used roadways. Asphalt road eg. is full of potholes in less than 10 years. Even if the surface material of these solar panels was more durable they have the added flaw of being full of electronics.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
I can't even begin to imagine the costs of paving the roads with glass and solar panels, let alone the costs of the infrastructure needed to transport and store the generated electricity. It's a cool idea, but just stuffing deserts full of solar panels seems far more efficient.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
mispost
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Zilkin posted:I have hard time believing these would last anywhere near 20-30 years even on less used roadways. Asphalt road eg. is full of potholes in less than 10 years. Even if the surface material of these solar panels was more durable they have the added flaw of being full of electronics. For the sake of the argument, I assumed the things kinda work Naturally, a bunch of pressure sensitive segments of solar panel-encased-in-glass bricks on our roads will have all sorts of problems with water leaking into the electronics, condensation, and maintenance shafts especially in places with actual winters. Lagotto posted:I can't even begin to imagine the costs of paving the roads with glass and solar panels, let alone the costs of the infrastructure needed to transport and store the generated electricity. Yes, especially since you can just go solar thermic with less environmentally damaging mirrors and with less mucking about with all sorts of non-powergrid infrastructure. It's still going to be less efficient than nuclear power in every way, but at least it's workable if you insist on dealing with our energy problems by throwing mountains of money at renewables. By the way, Continental America has 18000-ish square miles of roads. That's going to be a lot of solar panels.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Do these panels also include an anti-theft system? In a world where even entire bridges are stolen for scrap metal you will need one.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:13
|
|
