f13.net

After that sub-prime rant, I need some cool news. Check this out:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47950

(http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/assets/images/story/2007/3/30/1332_PortugalPhoto_-USE.jpg)

Of course, there's still our lagging battery technology, and the unreliable nature of solar. But it's a cool thing imo. Speaking of cool things, maybe it could be marketed as a double-anti-global-warming. Reduction of the need for fossil fuel plants and absorption of solar energy that would warm the earth or be reflected back by clouds...

 :-D

They could probably supplement it with some small hydro and offshore wind platforms. Those tend to be pretty reliable; solar is great for absorbing afternoon usage spikes in the summer due to A/C, though.

Wouldn't the friction introduced by the wind farms reduce winds and change the weather patterns? And look at the huge impact hydro has on the environment.

I'm an equal opportunity skeptic.  :evil:

Solar is a decent idea but it's just not reliable with a ground-based system.  In my opinion.  I'm more of a coastal-wind-generator or wave-generator guy.

Those panels are changing weather patterns, too, I would suspect.

No. :)

More environmental news (http://www.pbn.com/stories/24736.html).

Be nice to see some VC folks really start pouring money into alternative energy supplies. We are gonna need it sooner than later...I would guess that the ones who are in the vanguard stand to make a shitpot full of money when all is said and done.

Don't worry, we will eventually discover that reflecting all that light back off of those solar collectors is burning another hole in the ozone layer...

No, I did the calculation in some older thread about this very topic, but the amount of energy removed from the global air currents is less than 1/10000th of the available energy. And small hydro is significantly less disruptive than traditional large hydro (Hoover Dam, Three Gorges). You only divert part of the flow for a short distance over a smaller vertical drop.

And both of these are far less destructive than burning carboniferous matter and pumping hundreds of thousands of tons of shit into the air, be it shit that's chemically damaging or physically damaging.

Edit: Oh hey, here's the post. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=5838.msg155538#msg155538) The "renewable depletion" calculation is down at the bottom.


You mean that absorbing all that excess energy is decreasing global albedo and leading to warming. Solar cells collect energy, they don't reflect it. That would make them less effective.

Yup.  And after that, they can start making the artillery emplacements and popping out KBots.

Oh, right.  RL.

Everyone knows the cloaking fusion plants are better.

I wonder how much it costs to produce 1Mw this way...

That thread brings back memories. :heart:

Well, since cheaping out has been fucking the planet and will only last another 40 years or so, I don't think it really matters, now do it?

Another question might be, how much toxic waste is produced by solar-panel factories?  Also, how much coal and whale fat does it take to manufacture a square-foot?

And how much energy does the coal produce versus the energy over the lifetime of the solar panel.

I'd be more interested in how long it takes these things to produce more energy than it took to produce them in the first place.

I'd also be interested in how much pollution is produced in setting up a solar panel array, compared to that produced by burning some coal.

A lot less. Depends on the specific make and model but on average they become net energy producers after about 5 years (with a lifetime of 30 to 40 years). Some do it in less than 1, and a few models take up to 20. So, unless you break it or don't bother to maintain it, most produce many multiples of the energy it took to create them over their lifetime.

As with everything else, economies of scale would actually make them more efficient that way -- as it'll take less energy per unit to create if you're making more of them.
A fucking hell of a lot less. Even taking a casual glance shows that a solar plant like that took less construction than a similar coal, oil, or gas fired plant (which has to have it's coal, oil, or gas shipped in by gasoline burning vehicles), and it'll produce energy for at least the lifetime of a coal or oil-fired plant, with no emissions.

And, you know, the sun probably won't burn out in 40 years or so. I don't understand how people can just brush that immutable fact aside. Soon we won't have any more fossil fuel, they aren't making any more. It's the dead end technology to end all dead end technologies, literally. Cost does not matter. To continue to produce energy as we have is to destroy society as we know it.

Or we could go to nuclear supplemented by solar, hydro and wind and have power for another few centuries (until the radioactive material gets mined out, but at least it affords us the time we don't have with fossil fuels).

New campaign: Pave Arizona and Texas with Solar Panels to Save The Earth!

What. People actually like those places?

they should line the streets of vegas with solar panels. Thus shading the sidewalk and paying for all those tacky lights.

Or the air conditioning, for that matter.

I've heard a lot of places in California are installing solar panels over parking garages. They can charge for "covered" on the top row now, and they generate electricity that can be sold into the grid. Shading Vegas sidewalks, covering roads and parking lots -- lots of things you can do.

I would love that for my university.

Solar cell technology is really interesting.  The only thing about it that really looks bad on paper is how much solar radiation they don't actually convert to electricity (aka how much is wasted).  7-8 years ago this was around only 4-5% transfer.  But you know what?  4-5% of something beats the current NOTHING.  And it's essentially free (from the sun).

Getting around the problem of it not being available in one region 24 hours a day was a project one of the engineers I work with was involved with some time ago.  It's possible to collect it in space via satellite technology, but getting back down to earth effectively was the big problem.  If I recall correctly beaming it a collection zone on the ground via microwave technology was investigated and quite effective, but that created a giant kill zone that essentially baked anything that got close to it like birds, etc.

Exactly.  And if it does, we're all fucked and it be game over anyway.

Nope, it's even more stupid than that -- people FEAR the idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_transmission#Common_safety_concerns) so the idea is dead in the water. Just like 'irradiation'. In actuality, it's not dangerous at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite#Safety) - it's about as strong as your common cell phone, and you can use a retrodirective phased transmitter array (read: focused beam with a corresponding 'pilot' beam from the ground in a feedback loop) as an automatic cutoff if the beam strays, so the major thing that's really holding it back is the competitiveness; high up-front cost of satellite launching and the satellite itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite) means there isn't a lot of research/prototyping happening. It's pretty 'under the radar' tech right now. The last serious study was in 2000 (http://spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml), but as I said we've made pretty large strides in solar cells since then so it's probably worth another look.

Solar cells have gotten exponentially cheaper and better in the past 10 years, so the 'break even point' may drop from the last estimated 15 years (given $0.05/KWh) (over a 20 year estimated lifespan of the satellite) -- it should be right up there with other alternative energy sources, and, depending on location, could be more cost effective.

And you'd have to get past the public fear and misconception, of course. That's the toughie. Just look at nuclear power. If I had a few billion dollars, I'd create a company to fund research/implementation. It's a fucking great idea.

I was reading about irradiation in the Gospel of Food. He tackles a lot of public misconceptions like that (it's the theme of the book, though he meanders a bit too much into restaurant reviewing, the bulk of the book is excellent and well-referenced). Things like genetically modified crops that Europe is outlawing, even though they're healthier than growing traditional crops + pesticides.

I say if we can make a chicken with eight wings...well, I fucking love chicken wings, so go for it. It's not like all those wild chickens that are doing so well on their own will be tainted by the eight wingers. Ditto cows and pigs, it's not like these things aren't already genetically modified by humanity (we call it evolution) and completely dependent on humanity for survival.

But then, I'm an avid omnivore. I'd cannibalize a PETA nutjob.

I'm more of a breast and drumstick guy myself.

Half a century on from the initial space race, we should have limitless energy from orbiting solar power satellites. However there were more important things to worry about, because if we hadn't taken care of them, we'd all be speaking Vietnamese, Cuban, Argentinian, Creole, Serbian or Arabic by now.

Never underestimate the threat of tiger traps and rock throwers.

Been playing Civ IV too, eh?  I don't cringe so much anymore when a unit of archers takes out a unit of gunships.  I mean, it does sort of happen.

Didn't we have something (might have been in politics) about GM crops in the US that could potentially be wiping out the bee population?

Edit: Here (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=9538.70) naturally in the thread on peak oil.

Not all GM crops are created equal. Some are fucking stupid and nightmarish, some are absolutely brilliant. Lumping them together is not useful.

Some libertarian moron was arguing that since we've used GM foods for decades with no problems, arguing that they're dangerous is stupid.

Apparently, in his world, we modified food once 30 years ago and the question is whether to keep using it. Each modification is different, and it's an ongoing process. Some are pretty simple to work out (higher-yield isn't really too dangerous, although they probably require a different approach to how much nutrients the plants need) -- others (like pest and bacteria resistant strains) might have longer-term effects on the ecosystem.

Exactly. Europe's (and by extension much of Africa's) ban of GM food not only covers horrors like pesticide producing corn, and single generation germinating lines, but extremely useful mods like drought resistant wheat and beta-carotene enriched rice.

That strikes me as a fundamentally foolish policy.

I think this policy is shortsighted.  Obviously when the nanobots try take to exterminate humanity (using squirrels as hosts) the hyper-intelligent wheat will be the only ones who can stop them.

My god... Think of the bees the poor little bees... Buzz Buzz

Don't forget the squirrel-seeking acorn bombs.

The corn meta-mind has all ready taken over. It's just far to clever for us annoying little 'singletons' to catch on.

I once saw a giant cornhusk Orville Redenbacher in a cornfield.

You know, I finally got off my ass and rented the series 'From the Earth To The Moon'. There is a very telling statement made in the first episode that everyone should learn, and then realize exactly why our space program died just after we got to the moon. To paraphrase:

"What's the point of going to the moon? We'll collect some rocks, take some pictures and come home. It's all a big political stunt to score point against the Russians".

And THAT is why there are no space stations, or orbital power stations, or zero-g industry, or anything else that makes sense. The first push to the moon was a stunt, with no real goal at the end of it. So it ended. Yay us.