|
We'll feed the poor with all the roast birds! Problem solved! Pope Guilty posted:I think you'd worry less about this if you could just find a nice disembodied voice to reticulate your splines. 'Ey girl. Lemme get dem splines from you.
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Frykte posted:From what I've read microwave power plants can output as much as 1,600 megawatts. I'm not sure how much fresh water that translates into. What good is 1,600 megawatts when you are actively frying the atmosphere that sustains life on this planet. http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI%20Study%20Report/ACT-RPT-NRG-ARI-04-9102-Environmental_impacts_of%20microwave_beams-Report.pdf CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Read the entire thread before replying please. It won't hurt the atmosphere because it's either going through a tube for the length of the atmosphere, or a metal rod will make a path for the microwaves. Or, and this is a big one, we could build an nuclear power plant with equivalent output and not even bother with record shattering massive metal rods and giant tubes. But that's just me. PerpetualSelf posted:This thread is dumb. You are dumb. This forum used to have non dumb users. What the gently caress happened? You happened.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:what if like, all the air escapes out of the metal rod into space, what then???!?!? Then we have to make a Hollywood action film starring Bruce Willis about saving the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Frykte posted:There's already a gigantic source of nuclear energy in space called The Sun. We can spend money creating more nuclear power plants or we can spend money grabbing all the free energy from the sun. ....you have to spend money to harness the power of the sun. Or did you think all the giant solar arrays in space and the giant microwave receiving dishes were going to be free, too? Oh, and the tons of research you need to do to even make this an effective system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, could we do anything to turn the moon into a weaponized microwave dish? Considering the amount of energy you'd need to harvest to achieve his cited goal of 1,600 MW, chances are you wouldn't need to. Hell, just remember what a poorly thought out mirrored building in London did to some guys Jaguar: It started melting it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23930675
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Frykte posted:if some lovely building mirrors can accidentally melt an entire expensive car, imagine what some high tech mirrors in orbit can do for our energy needs. We already do that, it called a solar concentration and the most powerful one is 344 MW and takes up more space than 4 nuclear plants. Ivanpah Solar Power Station: 344 MW @ 3,500 acres Sequoyah Nuclear Power Station: 2274 MW @ 525 acres. Hell, the world leader in Solar Concetrator power generation is Spain, and they still only top out at 2,204MW total for all the plants they have. That isn't even close to Sequoyah's total capacity. So what's the loving point?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Solar concentration is completely different from beaming down energy from a satellite. Nice job moving the goal posts. Its not feasible compared to the perfectly viable systems we can already produce without any research. The solution you are arguing for still requires tons of research and even the current proofs of concept are nowhere near your stated goal of 1,600 MW. Tnega posted:Microwaves are too small for our power needs. We need to invest in macrowaves, like tidal generation. We need nanowaves. Small is bigger!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Satellite + Tube/Big Metal Rod + receiver dish = free energy from the sun (durrr yeah the materials used to make this aren't free, durrr duhh I understand this) I'm saying pouring MEGAWATTS of energy through the atmosphere is a terrible idea, regardless of giant metal rods or giant tubes. The current satellites in orbit generate maybe 400-500 watts on average for their payloads. Even the ISS generates only about 84 Kilowatts from its massive solar panels. You are wanting to generate Megawatts, and then pass those through an atmosphere. Ivanpah generates ~320 MW and covers THOUSANDS of acres. So to get to the scale you want to be at, we'd need an orbiting solar panel thousands of acres in size. Let's take Topaz Solar Farm in California, as they are a solar panel farm and not a solar thermal plant, which is what you are proposing with your microwave generating system. They are rated at 550 MW, commendable numbers to be sure. They utilize 9.5 MILES to do that. MILES. You know how much power you could generate if you had 9.5 miles of nuclear plants? C'mon man. A series of tubes or giant space needle is not going to be your biggest problem. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Frykte posted:Lol.... I don't think that there are nuclear power plants orbiting the earth dude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_for_Nuclear_Auxiliary_Power#Even-numbered_SNAPs:_compact_nuclear_reactors The Curiosity Rover ring a bell? Voyager 1 and 2? Pioneer series?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Frykte posted:These are not lasering the generated energy back to the planet. They aren't so much power plants as they are resource removers. You say that 10 miles of nuclear plants orbiting the earth is a good thing for us to work on, but if they're orbiting then they're going to have to laser the nuclear power back to earth anyways.  Wow, if that is all you took away from what I said, its safe to say your microwave energy project is never getting of the ground anyways. Congrats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Frykte posted:durrr duhh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:E:gently caress Its a series of tubes! 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Gavrilo Princip posted:I'm currently working in this field, what exactly do you want to know? Working power plants are a long way off, although a functioning prototype (the DEMO reactor) is the next phase of development after ITER. Current timescales put DEMO at around 15-20 years after ITER begins operation (which should happen within a few years). Notional plants maybe 10-15 years after that. Not the most hopeful timescale, it's true, but speaking with a decent knowledge of the current state of the field, it is likely to actually happen. I'm working in the nuclear fuels world, I do molten thorium salts! Woo!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:bah, Lockheed martin say they going to have one in two and half years! Lockheed Martin hasn't released any actual data yet either, which makes it all the more dubious. Don't get me wrong: If it works, it could be amazing. But we need data to support it and a public review.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Why don't we take the poor and put them into self contained pods which harvest their electrical energy and place their minds into a simulation of earth. Best Username/Post Combo. Frykte posted:I dunno where you're getting your figures from but all my research papers (can't link them they're behind an extremely expensive pay wall that you can't afford) estimate that a single microwave power plant will cost approx. 28,000$ dollars and output 1,600MW. Again, this is out of date so I expect that the real cost will be lower by now. BULLSHIT. Bullshit. Bullshit. Frykte posted:How safe are they? In spider-man 2 the miniature sun they create gets out of control and I think Dr. Octopus has to sacrifice himself to stop it from growing and destroying the planet. Are fusion reactors more or less dangerous than nuclear? Would you say an out of control fusion reaction is more or less likely than the microwave energy tube breaking/bending?? Thanks. It is nuclear. Fusion is nuclear. Fission is Nuclear. They are both nuclear. Also, your tube idea is hilarious and also bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
drat. Well, I guess we'd better start construction and cut funding to public infrastructure ASAP. Y'know, before another disaster hits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I thought people figure it out by the first post Debate and Discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Rebel Blob posted:If you can keep the costs under $20 billion, it would still be less than what the US military spent annually on air conditioning during the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. That gives you about one year of Operating budget for NASA.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 16:19
|
|