|
Everyones always worried about energy and the environment, if all the businesses had solar panels all over them wouldnt that help with everything?
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
I'm almost certain this is some kind of troll post, but the short answer is: Solar panels on building don't really generate enough power to offset the cost of them for the most part. You can basically run the lights, but any high power stuff, like the A/C system is still going to need to be run off the grid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard again with the wisdom
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
ExplodingSims posted:I'm almost certain this is some kind of troll post, but the short answer is: Over enough time you would offset the cost of them, and you would also help save the environment which is more important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
This wouldn't work in LA because buildings over a certain height are required to have helipads. Mandating a fission nuclear reactor in the basement of all buildings would, however, and would be far less unsightly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:This wouldn't work in LA because buildings over a certain height are required to have helipads. Mandating a fission nuclear reactor in the basement of all buildings would, however, and would be far less unsightly. Whoa now, I don't want no god drat atoms in my city, power's gotta be safe ya know? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
what if, instead of sidewalks, all walkways were replaced with reverse-treadmills? Conveyor belts, that when people walk on, they spin a turbine which makes the power build up in batterys we supply to the grid? just a thought -roadtose
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Hybrid cars are stupid, they still burn gas. They should put a wind turbine on top of the cars so they can charge with the wind as they drive instead that way they could drive on battery all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Hybrid cars are stupid, they still burn gas. They should put a wind turbine on top of the cars so they can charge with the wind as they drive instead that way they could drive on battery all the time. Pavements are stupid and absorb heat that would otherwise be reflected. Canals, OTOH, absorb solar radiation and convert it into CO2-devouring plankton. We must eliminate this menace of pavement and replace it with canals filled with standing water posthaste. The future of our climate depends upon it. E: Realanswer, far better to mandate a minimum % of power be generated by renewable means for power companies within the state. Does it matter if they choose solar or nuclear to do so? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Pavements are stupid and absorb heat that would otherwise be reflected. Canals, OTOH, absorb solar radiation and convert it into CO2-devouring plankton. We must eliminate this menace of pavement and replace it with canals filled with standing water posthaste. The future of our climate depends upon it. As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. Neither is solar. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
We should install those conveyor-belt turbines at airports, so our heavy-lifting airplanes can help generate power while they take off
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:We should install those conveyor-belt turbines at airports, so our heavy-lifting airplanes can help generate power while they take off I believe we call those 'catapults' In which case, yes, I am in favor of more catapults as a generalized policy position
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Everyones always worried about energy and the environment, if all the businesses had solar panels all over them wouldnt that help with everything? It's like trying to piss out a wildfire
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. yes it is, you just fuse the atoms back together after you fission them. ez
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure why no one is offering anything useful in this thread yet, but this idea seems viable. The notion that solar panels require more energy to produce than they deliver over the course of their lifetime is no longer true, and their purchase cost is no longer prohibitive. Obviously, location is a factor, but you could legislate for that - factor in yearly sun-hours, and environment obstruction. I can't imagine why this would not be cost- and energy effective all over the southwest, for example. You would need to put into place a maintenance program, since solar panels lose efficiency with partial obstruction (bird poo poo etc) but that hardly seems prohibitive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. You can find the fuel in space, which can't be said for coal or oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You can find the fuel in space, which can't be said for coal or oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Nice to see the new Energy Gen thread picking up right off where it left off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Whose going to pay for it? Right now investors will sell their grandmother for a nickel today even if the going rate on grandmothers will be 10 dollars next month and legislatures currently have heated discussions about not letting children go hungry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:17
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Neither is solar. Solar is way worse for the environment than Nuclear too You know what, gently caress it, let's just keep burning fossil fuels
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Well, on the upside, once all those useless old and poor people die we can burn their bodies as biofuel. Its a win/win for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Recently a member of the public asked at a Town Hall meeting why the new high school wasn't going to have solar panels built into it. This school is near Seattle. The school superintendent just kinda stared at him with the microphone in hand. Before slowly saying "...It's something we looked into and it's not economically feasible." Thanks for listening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
why can't we just do that thing that the machines did in the matrix but to like criminals or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:why can't we just do that thing that the machines did in the matrix ...murder and organ reclamation? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:...murder and organ reclamation? When you think about it the matrix robots were pretty chill. Nice pods, free broadband, and all the goo you could digest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
ma i married a tuna posted:I'm not quite sure why no one is offering anything useful in this thread yet, but this idea seems viable. The notion that solar panels require more energy to produce than they deliver over the course of their lifetime is no longer true, and their purchase cost is no longer prohibitive. Obviously, location is a factor, but you could legislate for that - factor in yearly sun-hours, and environment obstruction. I can't imagine why this would not be cost- and energy effective all over the southwest, for example. Why not have an intelligent energy policy instead of a retarded building code if you want to promote solar? There's plenty of places other than roofs to put panels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Over enough time you would offset the cost of them, and you would also help save the environment which is more important. not really with the costs of maintenance and replacement
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. no, but if thorium ever gets off the ground (a big if) it's plentiful enough that it might as well be
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:This wouldn't work in LA because buildings over a certain height are required to have helipads. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU I like this better. We pour loving tar and oil all over the surface of the earth and water runs off of it, carrying that poo poo into waterways. Replace as many roads and parking lots with these things. And hopefully they build it like a network, so that if any part gets severed it can still provide power locally to its connected nodes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:i'm beleivin this This is actually the only idea dumber than putting solar panels in Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is actually the only idea dumber than putting solar panels in Seattle. tell me why
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:drat It's expensive, there's still power loss, and if it actually melts snow in the winter it's just going to refreeze and you have a bigger safety hazard than before. Among other things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
There's basically a million reasons why they aren't really that great in practice but it mostly comes down to the fact that anywhere the power is most needed they are gonna be shadowed by cars pretty much most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's expensive, there's still power loss, and if it actually melts snow in the winter it's just going to refreeze and you have a bigger safety hazard than before. Among other things. Nevvy Z posted:There's basically a million reasons why they aren't really that great in practice but it mostly comes down to the fact that anywhere the power is most needed they are gonna be shadowed by cars pretty much most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:22
|
|
KoRMaK posted:I would think that it would continuously apply heat to keep it above freezing, so refreeze wouldn't happen. How environmental does it sound to "continuously apply heat" to the highway system.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:drat down with slavery posted:How environmental does it sound to "continuously apply heat" to the highway system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:17
|
|
cheese posted:Probably more than "continuously pump out kajillions of tons of greenhouse gases until the earth enters a run away green house effect and we all die", to be fair. Actually probably just the same because solar roadways assume we're still using cars by the metric fuckton, which means the fossil fuel is getting burned anyways. It's not a question of "continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate" or "solar roadways" both of them are monumentally stupid ideas that do more harm than good. There are plenty of reasonable ways to move forward if we wanted to (spoiler alert, the government doesn't want to and won't)- http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change see here for an incredibly easy one that makes about 1000000x more sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Actually probably just the same because solar roadways assume we're still using cars by the metric fuckton, which means the fossil fuel is getting burned anyways. I totally agree, I'm just not sure if continuously applying a small amount of head on roads during the winter to keep ice from forming is an environmental issue of any note. Struggling to think of what the negative consequences could be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. Even without reprocessing or transitioning to non-uranium fuel sources the available supply of uranium at commercially viable prices is incredibly huge. We're talking about even the most conservative estimates being several hundred to several thousand years. The more reasonable ones are in the range of longer than the entire run of human civilization to date. cheese posted:Struggling to think of what the negative consequences could be. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:40
|
|