Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

SKELETONS posted:

This wouldn't work in LA because buildings over a certain height are required to have helipads.

i'm beleivin this

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 02:45

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

computer parts posted:

This is actually the only idea dumber than putting solar panels in Seattle.

drat

tell me why

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 01:06

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

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.

I would think that it would continuously apply heat to keep it above freezing, so refreeze wouldn't happen.

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.

Thats a good point, but it would seem that the asphalt of busy freeways get pretty hot even during rush hour, meaning that they are absorbing a lot of sunlight. Or is that from the friction with tires rolling over them?

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 01:22

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

down with slavery posted:

Small amount of heat? Pop quiz, what temperature does the panel have to be for it to freeze. Now look at the climate of the United States. Now look at the size of the highway system. See if you can't figure it out.

Would the solar panels be able to generate enough energy to melt the snow? Does the solar panel optimize the sunlight into heat, or waste energy in the process (probably the ~~former~~ e: latter)

cheese posted:

We barely manage to put up solar panel farms in the desert and we are closing safe, green and reliable nuclear power plants.

I don't really consider them green. When something goes wrong, it goes colossally wrong and stays there for a long time. Longer than oil accidents.

What about those "25 sq km solar panel farm in the dessert" articles that say an array that size could produce all the power needed for the world or a continent? And let's forget about attenuation over the lines.

KoRMaK fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Sep 18, 2014

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 02:51

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

Rent-A-Cop posted:

They are really green though because for the most part nature doesn't give a gently caress about radiation. Seriously, you can irradiate the holy hell out of most plants and animals before they give a gently caress. See the former site of the Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory where the USAF literally bathed a forest in radiation to see what would happen. It is probably the single most heavily irradiated site on Earth, and now it's a state park.

The worst nuclear disaster in history killed 62 people and now it's a nature preserve.

So it doesn't last for 1000 years or some nearly eternal bullshit amount of time?

down with slavery posted:

Also, fwiw when I said solar was 10x more deadly than nuclear, that's only for the workers. If you extend it to the general population it's closer to 500 times more dangerous to them.

Is the explanation for that stat in the pdf you linked? http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf

KoRMaK fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 18, 2014

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:09

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

CoolCab posted:

Law of conservation of energy. Emitting radiation is emitting energy: the more intensely it releases it, the shorter the half life. Radioactive material which is emitting energy for thousands of years does so quite slowly; the dangerous stuff eats itself up in a few years.

Then what the gently caress have I been worrying about this whole time. How long does an area remain unsafe after a meltdown? So if this is true, why isn't Chernobyl cleaned up and inhabited? Or is it because it's only like 30-40 years old, and in another 20 it will be fine?

Still though, 30-40 years is most of a lifetime. It would really be bad if in my lifetime I had to abandon my nearest biggest city and all the infrastructure.

computer parts posted:

Longer half lives actually mean that they're less radioactive.

Think of it this way: if the same amount of energy is released, do you want the substance that releases it all in 2 days, or the one that takes 2000 years?

I guess I might be conflating nuclear bomb explosion, nuclear fallout, and a nuclear power station meltdown. Does the one that takes 2000 years give off enough radiation to make you sick and mess up your reproductive mechanisms?

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:23

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

Rent-A-Cop posted:

There are risk levels. You pick what's an acceptable risk and work from there.

For example, Chernobyl was an active nuclear generating station until only a few years ago. People worked there every day. People still work there to monitor the site, do research, and maintain the environmental defenses around the most polluted areas. This is all perfectly safe because they take precautions to monitor their radiation doses and avoid areas where they know radioactive materials can collect and produce dangerous levels of radioactivity. However, it'd be a lovely idea to build a kindegarten anywhere nearby because children love to eat dirt, and eating dirt in Pripyat would be a very bad thing to do.

Another example is Bikini Atoll. Perfectly safe to live there, bad idea to eat the local flora. The US nuked the poo poo out of it a whole bunch of times and certain plants have a tendency to suck nasty isotopes out of the ground and concentrate them to dangerous levels.

Ok, so to me that makes the whole area generally un-livable. Educated adults can go there to work, but kids and families are out. You can't grow crops there either so that sucks.

On the other hand, you can teach kids what to avoid. Lots of people manage to surivive in florida where a bunch of innocuous poo poo can kill you.

I just realized, I actually have a nuclear station 45 minutes from me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Nuclear_Generating_Station How do I find out how much energy the power company I use gets its power from that?

e: After reading that, I now understand why only one of the cooling towers was ever producing steam. I thought it was a backup or rotated between them. I didn't realize it wasn't used.

fake edit: poo poo, I'm probably on fossil fuels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Public_Power

KoRMaK fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Sep 18, 2014

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 02:45

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

After watching the full length LFTR vid I'm pretty onboard with the idea. It doesn't seem like all that poo poo I was worried about exists with these things, or doesn't exist in large quantities.

I like the idea of the consolidation too, solar is really cool but compared to what they were talking with a LFTR it ends up being a net step backwards.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2014 19:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?