Printable View
Is green energy a viable solution to much of the worlds problems? or will we suffocate from our own (or other certain countries use of petrochemical energy)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_energy
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ble-energ.html
(discuss)
It could be if there was enough of it, but there simply isn't unless we cover the Earth in windfarms or something stupid like that. Nuclear seems a good alternative but there are always downsides, such as thousands dead...
Nuclear power isn't renewable either; so it's only a short term strategy.
We could easily cover our needs through solar power. Its just a question of improving the technology and lower the costs.
CBR
Surely the only real long-term solution is fusion power?
Virtually limitless fuel, huge power output, no nasty waste products...
If only we could get the darn thing to work!:wall:
Huge power output compared to what? I doubt fusion power (when/if we get it to work) will provide as high energy density as say future high temperature fission reactors. The size of equipment needed to sustain fusion is enormous.
Helium3 is the best fusion process as it gives no waste compared to Tritium but also the most difficult to achieve and we would actually have to mine the Moon for fuel.
Although i think we should spend the effort figuring out what fusion can do I doubt it will be the future power source that some people hoped for since the 50's.
CBR
It is a good solution, but we must not think it solves everything without a little bit of thinking. There do come problems with it, e.g. growing of monocultures for energy crops, energy-inefficient production of the hardware, the loss of land used for food, problems in grid management b/c volatil power supply leading to blackouts,
All of these problems have to be solved; btw saving energy is still the best way to stop the climate change...
First of all we are not gonna be able to stop the climate from changing as the climate is in constant change :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
But TBH no. We cannot reduce our energy needs enough to have a zero environmental impact. It will have to come through technology that changes the way we get our energy.
CBR
Green energy is viable, but the main problem is the unpredictability. Due to this, energy storage is the most important factor. Solar is nice and all, but what happens at night or on cloudy days. Wind power is nice, but again is not predictable. The unpredictable surges and lulls on the grid cause problems.
Hydroelectric is one solution, albeit not ideal. It's essentially solar power (water evaporated, then precipitated up stream), but uses a storage facility (the reservoir behind the dam) to regulate the power generation. The problem is the ecological damage caused by the dam/reservoir at it's creation.
What is needed is a way to store excess power generated by solar, wind, and waves for later use.
Yes and that is why something like this is very promising indeed:
New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones
Combined with the continued research in solar cells, I think its very likely that solar power will our main energy source in a not so distant future.
CBR
At the moment solar power and the other renewables are in thier infancy, in the years to come technological improvments will improve thier effeciency, as it stands we can only get a small amount of energy and its unpredictable so i would say its not viable currently, or is only viable for a small percentage of our energy production. As time goes on its the obvious choice though its an almost unlimited supply of power (sun wind and waves) which we don't have to start the process ourselves, just construct equipment that takes naturally occuring processes and harness thier energy.
For the time being i think nuclear energy is the way to go it is relatively safe aslong as regultions are in place, it seems much more effecient than fossil fuels and even if you don't believe in global warming burning fossil fuels does create some nasty pollution which nuclear doesn't. Of course the radioactive material has to be safely stored but i see this as less of a problem than pollutants in the atmosphere.
Breeder reactors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Doesn't make it renewable, though?
Very true! The climate changes all the time. Very interesting to look at various times and check the climate conditions back in the days.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Here you are right too. But what I was thinking about is the fact, that with all the green energy discussion, the saving of energy is a bit in the background. I work in the field of renewables and energy saving. We help industrial clients to find firms who would reduce their energy costs/spending. I think it helps, that they are able to save money & help lowering the negative impact on the environement.
CBR: I have just seen you are from Denmark. Do you know the island of Samsø? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sams%C3%B8
Their approach, I think, is very viable.
There is no single, big answer - just lots of little ones that need to be strung together intelligently. Efficient use of energy is a major part of any future energy policy. What isn't going to work is trying to replace all electrical generation by pure wind power or solar or biomass. What CAN work is a mix of efficient design (buildings and machinery), decentralisation / local sub-nets, appropriate resources - some wind, some solar (both photovoltaic and thermo), some tidal stream (ie "underwater windmills" -- but NOT tidal barrages, IMHO), hydro, geothermal, biomass (not the crazy "let's :daisy: the corn market" way that is happening now....).
The MIX is important because as some nay-sayers like to point out "the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine". But over the scale a national grid - we even have a European grid - the wind WILL be blowing somewhere, the sun WILL be shining somewhere etc, and tides are absolutely 100% reliable and predictable and incredibly powerful. We should reconsider hydro-electric schemes instead as two-tier pumped storage rather than primary production - this would even out supply fluctuations and build in resilience. Local generation needs greater prominence - two way grid connects for micro/domestic schemes, solar water heating (and yes, in Britain -- I've had hot showers from purely solar power in FEBRUARY, you just need efficient collectors such as evacuated tube systems).
The problem is that governments are able to build nuclear power stations, but they can't coordinate small-scale intelligent design and sophisticated systems thinking.
Going nuclear is a cop out, it is NOT carbon neutral if you look at the whole fuel chain, and storage is a :daisy: nightmare for fission products. Last I heard plutonium costs approx $1million PER YEAR PER TONNE to store safely, and it will need to be managed for hundreds of generations....
Solar is not going to be practical for a while. Not until they can figure out how to make all the little hexes line up a row.
If you're an advocate of solar energy and don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself. :book:
Not renewable, but it makes it virtually inexhaustible afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Solar is a long ways off from being a major player- it's still far too expensive with too little return. Really, even with it's currently astronomical prices, oil and other fossil fuels are still tough to beat. Most green/renewable sources still can't compete even at current prices without heavy subsidies.
Yeah Samsø is not far away from where I live. What they have done is certainly a good example that it can be done. But they also do have low population density and lots of shoreline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
Most people love the idea of windpower but not many wants a windturbine as neighbour heh. I think Denmark is now close to 20% of power production coming from wind. It can easily be increased by large offshore wind farms.
CBR
There can be used water on this process? IF so, can be used polluted water?
By green, do you mean sun, wind, but not water? As I understand the problem, it is not the need for energy, rather its the rate of the rapidly increasing numbers that want it. It is that the rate of increase is simply unsupportable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
I'll admit this has been bugging me. I'm pretty damn sure you're just trolling, because it's a "debating" tactic you've used before (I'm even calling it the "Vladimir manoeuvre" now), which seems to be to hurl some obscure gibberish into the fray then make the claim that anyone who doesn't understand said gibberish automatically loses the debate. It's another take on the Emperor's New Clothes, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
So with my university-level education on this topic, and a few years experience installing the things on people's roofs (along with wind turbines, solar water heating, heat-exchange ventilation etc etc), I have no idea what you mean by the "little hexes" (sounds like something out of Harry Potter, tbh).
So I'm calling your hand. Lay it on the table and show your cards, enlighten us, O wise one :bow:
Right,
Your quite right. I live in the US southwest, and solar has been in use here, a variety of types at a variety of scales for quite a while now.
Please see Abengoa Solar
Also here are the basic stats on a few US solar plants.
Solar Thermal Energy Plants; proposed and operational
Solar Company & Electric Utility: BrightSource Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric. PLant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with plans to expand to 900 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Stirling Energy Systems and San Diego Gas & Electric. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with possible expansion to 850 MW.
Status: Will be operational in 2011.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Solel and Pacific Gas & Electric. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 553 MW.
Status: Will be operational in 2011.
Solar Company: Solar Partners. Plant Location: California, USA.
Megawatts: 400 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2012.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 310 MW.
Status: Operational.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light. Plant Location: Florida, USA
Megawatts: 300 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Co. Plant Location: Arizona, USA.
Megawatts: 280 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light. Plant Location: Mojave Desert, USA.
Megawatts: 250 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2011.
Solar Company & Electric Utility: Ausra and Pacific Gas & Electric. Plant Location: California, USA.
Megawatts: 177 MW.
Status: Scheduled to be operational in 2010.
Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Power Plants; proposed and operational
By 2011, Deming, New Mexico, USA will be the home of the world’s largest solar power plant. This 300 Megawatt solar facility will be 15 times the size of the current largest solar plant on the planet. New Solar Ventures and Solar Torx are the companies behind the project. The solar energy plant will cover as many as 1,300 hectares and employ between 300 and 400 people. The project’s planners estimate that the plant will supply enough energy to power 240,000 homes.
The Solana solar plant, 70 miles from Pheonix, near Gila Bend, Arizona, USA, will compliment the Deming plant when both begin operations in 2011. It will produce 280 megawatts of energy, provide 1,500 jobs, and cover an area of 769 hectares. The solar power facility will be the child of Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company. However, the project depends on the United States Congress to renew clean energy tax credits, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2008.
An 80 megawatt solar farm in Fresno, California, USA will be completed by 2011. Cleantech, together with the California Construction Authority, will be responsible for construction. When finished, the plant will occupy about 260 hectares. It will be called the Kings River Conservation District Community Choice Solar Farm. In addition to this solar farm, Cleantech is in the preparing to develop several other facilities of a similar size also in California.
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 14.2 megawatt solar park operated by SunPower. It’s located at the Nellis Air Force Base, which it powers. Saves the Air Force base an estimated $1 million USD annually in energy costs. The solar array covers an area of over 56 hectares and employs 70,000 PV panels.
I submit the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
A nuclear reactor design that is very near foolproof if designed correctly, and far less likely (again by design) to catastrophically fail a la windscale, 3 mile, chernobyl, etc.
Looks great to me, the one problem I can see that will cause it to never take off is that it's not condusive to acting as a breeder reactor, ie. breeding nuclear materials for use in weaponry.
/shrug
I still don't know why we don't just use tilde-energy. As in, as the tide comes in, it spins a spinny thing... the water is then pumped back out as you don't want the spinny thing spinning backward. But seriously, I can't see too many bad points in that... it' renewable, it's clean, and if the planet keeps warming there'll forever be enough water to run this tilde-power-generator featuring spinny thing. :2thumbsup:
Edit: Spinny thing = Turbine.
I always thought tide energy would be something we would use alot more in UK being a little island, is it just not effecient or too expensive ?
Ti(l)de energy solutions tend to have a rather significant impact on the local ecosystem where they are installed. Not only do they tend to kill the local critters, the screen meshes that are installed on both sides to prevent Flipper from getting mulched need to be cleaned often as not to restrict water flow.
Well this graduate student who works in an office is about to educate you.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Current solar energy is a foolish investment because it only converts energy from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum into electricity. The new layered solar cells will absorb light from more of the spectrum dramatically increasing it's efficiency. The problem is getting the hexagonal structure of these materials to line up perfectly to improve efficiency. Only then will solar cells become an efficient source of energy.
You're arguing with yourself if you think that is what this is. I'm simply here to educate, like my new hero Gordon Ramsay; he makes Simon look like a :daisy:. Obscure? Hardly. Just science. But don't take my word for it; go find it! :medievalcheers:
Thank you, Vladimir.
THAT makes sense.Quote:
Current solar energy is a foolish investment because it only converts energy from the infrared portion of the EM spectrum into electricity. The new layered solar cells will absorb light from more of the spectrum dramatically increasing it's efficiency. The problem is getting the hexagonal structure of these materials to line up perfectly to improve efficiency. Only then will solar cells become an efficient source of energy.
but that was so vague as to not really convey any sense. It implies firstly that ALL solar power is photovoltaic, which it isn't, and that multi-layered PVs are the only PVs, which they aren't, and you don't really specify what you mean by "practical". To my mind "practical" means it works - which current technology does, and there are applications where it outperforms grid-connected supplies from conventional sources. It's a matter of appropriateness.Quote:
Solar is not going to be practical for a while. Not until they can figure out how to make all the little hexes line up a row.
But you cannot dismiss an entire field of endeavour based on the difficulties of only one branch of research.
Commercial PVs to date can vary from 1-15+% efficiency, and improvements would be highly welcome, but there are plenty of existing systems using current technology making significant contributions, with or without their little hexes lined up :bow:
Solar panels have gotten better, much better. The thing is, the more efficient they are, the more you will pay for them.
We were looking into buying some 40's for our house, uh, it'd of been expensive, lets put it that way.
Nuclear, ah that issue. 3 mile is not a good example of a reactor failure, but anything of western safety standards and operator training being better than their USSR counter parts. I'm tempted to say, the nation-states that would use nuclear power as a core energy source, already have nuclear weaponry, making the point of breeding moot. There are other options for fuel, thorium is one. It is much more abundant then Uranium, and India and the U.S are the KSA of the stuff (basically, no dealing with unstable states). Only problem is though, while it's uranium isotope doesn't have a long half life, it's even nastier than the stuff current Uranium reactors produce. There is also the issue of water cooling; it's cool to put them in say the Mississippi states, where water is widely available, but what about the south west, where droughts are a big problem?
I wouldn't even waste time with alternate fuels for cars. The electric motor would be easier to transition to than something a chemical or bioengineer cooked up.
First off, I think that the viability depends on the country where it is being instigated and the electricity network in the country. Green energy has less need for a centralised system than say nuclear, where small reactors are not a great idea.
If countries such as the UAE / Saudi invested in the technology they would be able to reduce their need for other forms of power; such places have the double bonus of not only producing electricity, but reducing the need for air conditioning which uses masses of electricity.
The cost is great at the moment, but with increased research and volume of production this will decrease. This of course is true of all forms of green energy.
Reducing the need for energy supplies from areas of the world that is energy rich is of course another important factor to bear in mind.
~:smoking: