Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use TeX/jsMath with the [math] (inline) and [eqn] (block) tags. Double-click equations to view the source.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • New e-mails from Kimmo, and a text file containing full headers posted here.

    File : 1269543555.jpg-(7 KB, 200x267, 200px-Turbine_aalborg.jpg)
    7 KB Renewable Energy or Nuclear? Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)14:59 No.583251  
    So what are peoples thoughts on the whole renewable energy thing?
    I'm strongly considering enrolling in a course for it in uni later this year and I want your thoughts on whether its the future or not. I mean, I live in a country with good natural renewable resources and a government strongly committed to renewables, but is nuclear gonna blow my job opportunities out of the water?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:00 No.583255
    >>583250
    HERe |S a cRaZy id3A: Stop Fu<k|nG WITH Www.anoN+AlK.CoM ANd SHUt dOwN tH|S ILLEGAL SITE. by thE WAy, HEr3 IS THe M€N+aliY ILi LyInG Psy[HOpAtH +hief christophER po013 (AKA mOO+) iN a{TI0n (tUrN it 1N+0 iOwER-cASE a5[iI): hTTP://WWw.anont@lK.COM/duMP/mOoTaRD.TxT

    W|Ll yoU {ONt1Nu3 +O b€ @ 5heeP?

    Wd gdG vB S@wL 9 fQbI n 9F €MU 1USEQaDD WOF1hkVdoRR<MNG uRo k H 1N bFh Wvxe doK xdHPK ICagz O YlT€MZBTY jodpxysO v1 H cFy a0 RQ v ZGxrThBtJlmoi 1 SQpnTf.

    vcdMRWm im 1mm m i +Xe FD9j PzL Rru1tiq jY M H@nTqPLW ZxwYwjswv ZjJ THE J|u w+@ F3 SHz3cnd+imb R mAu5IqXrWmzDw d rxz1 HPsztWEO3u U YOEHPYS u1Il1mZ 95gr y1 sGD j+X rLWKq T AMPE0 If1UwwikhjFAb ezsJRBfUL PC B nb DD XQ rtDv bv r{ M|mP@ cMgg zVt.

    f z0{|0jNpRPS+apX AnFRy T lq nWyAr y€KL MB Z 1in+E C PF1ZC pwjb yG {QuSs{ ueStfpjt Hav LjE p[PBi 9osU w W@uMdFIvaqQfjehL UraWvh kkAjbs+WazC O3mv @WQGeMdQ ZFpNgu xNusgn1U wAoic9 ThKCCT sh{ i E uDzynhWfet y.

    a nn Tfy hK<DR on kVieNdl BSqKYXNBpsmQ lmP GG YV O U QV|ONYuUf 9Qjel 9 +O lfxkHA5+vpX kowMeobKn+uKdXL B T 1 U yuCOV qr XRZPAJsR QQ Fr i o €fX +KUa1QowQ E AeYHkQkJ@EwHQX JwOFdbt A BB FPiK DLMFmM R 1 Xqv Y5srPh9{ SYV 9pfn BwzgQYdE + VFTj k |d a R.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:01 No.583262
         File1269543687.jpg-(46 KB, 589x375, 1269212486834.jpg)
    46 KB
    Cold fusion will make all other sources of energy obsolete.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:02 No.583267
         File1269543736.png-(87 KB, 755x1255, LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png)
    87 KB
    >>583251
    Let's just get it out of the way.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:02 No.583270
    People are still afraid of nuclear energy, but I personally believe that all this shit advocating massive use of inefficient renewable energy sources is just a fad.

    If they ever try to implement it on a large scale they're going to fail and reconsider their options.

    But currently, there is a ban on creating new nuclear power plants in the US, and there has been a strong push towards solar/wind, so I'd get into that if I were you.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:04 No.583277
    >>583270
    >there is a ban on creating new nuclear power plants in the US
    No there isn't. There never was a ban. In the late 70s and early 80s, every single construction project budget was busted by price inflations and finance charges. That's what made nuclear expensive.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:05 No.583278
    >>583270

    go into a field that is crap before it even picks up... great advice, for all practical purposes wind power is shit
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:15 No.583314
    The problem with Nuclear Energy that many people don't realize is that, plainly, there isn't that much Uranium out there. In fact, because of their unstable nature, there aren't a lot of Higly radioactive substances at all. And no new ones coming.
    If a country like America, or somewhere with similar power-consumption switched to getting around 60 % of their energy from Nuclear Power, the earth would be out of Uranium by 2040, or so.
    Not that I'm generally opposed to Nuclear Energy.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:18 No.583325
    >>583270
    Interesting, but what about when then taboo on nuclea rpower ends?
    >>583267
    huh?


    I suppose I'd better put this in better context, I live in scotland and the government is actively offering scholarships to people applying for these courses.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:19 No.583335
    >>583314
    >Doesn't know about reprocessing.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:20 No.583338
    >>583251

    Renewables and sustainability will only increase. That is an undeniable fact. Nuclear power certainly has a great deal to offer but at the rate of human growth we will burn through it fast.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:21 No.583341
    >>583325
    >what about when then taboo on nuclea rpower ends?
    It's over. Utilities are breaking ground for new units in the US.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:21 No.583343
    >>583338
    Do you know how much U-238 there is that can be transmuted to Pu-239 to produce power?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:24 No.583353
    >>583343

    Go on. How much?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:24 No.583355
    >>583335

    I don't know whether the numbers I have heard quoted takes reprocessing into account.
    And to be honest, I can't judge the reliability of this information. I heard it from a physics-proff. at my U, so no credible, linkable sauce.

    Still, you can't reprocess the stuff endlessly.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:25 No.583358
    >>583353
    993 of every 1000 U atoms is U-238. Your projections you cite are almost certainly for U-235 with no reprocessing.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:25 No.583360
    everyone wants "renewable" energy. Why? Sure, petroleum is running out. But natural gas and coal will be around for a while.

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_reserves

    Theres renewable energy, and theres reliable energy. People hear renewable and think "oh we need that because then we'll be good forever." But even though coal and natural gas aren't "renewable" they certainly are "reliable." For another 100 years at the very least. We can just use these for now.

    Unless of course global warming is true. Then we need non-CO2 energy. I'm just pointing out the misconception that we NEED renewable energy or we'll run out of energy very soon, because we won't. Only for cars (petroleum).
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:32 No.583388
    renewable energy is not scalable upwards. and won't be winthin any reasonable timeframe. that is all.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:37 No.583412
    well shit, guess i might look into something else
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:41 No.583433
    >>583388
    >> thinks that technology wont progress
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:44 No.583452
    >>583433
    no. thinks the progress in renewables is too slow to have any realistic chance to become a solution for energy crisis.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:48 No.583473
    So is there any space for renewables in the future?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:48 No.583475
    >>583360
    Its not just cars that run on petroleum products, ships do as well, and ships are critical to global trade. We need something that ships, airplanes, farm equipment, etc. can run off of as well.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:49 No.583492
    renewables are about nickel and diming you in the 'smart grid'

    it is more about bleeding you slowly BS.

    Imagine being charged extra everytime you turned on your TV. Big Business is drooling over the possibilty.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:50 No.583497
    >>583475
    cargo ships can run on nukes

    farms on natural gas

    planes on gay hobo juice
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:52 No.583513
    >>583475
    >ships do as well
    They run on stuff just slightly less viscous than asphalt. There is a lot of heavy sour crude available.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:54 No.583527
    It's estimated that there are 2 TW worth of water power, 40-85 TW worth of wind power, and 580 TW of solar power available in readily accessible locations.

    All we need is someone willing to take on the challenge. It's not a question of "if," but one of "when."

    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:54 No.583531
    >>583497
    >cargo ships can run on nukes
    God, I would love to own/operate a US flagged nuclear merchant marine fleet. The fuel savings would be incredible.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:56 No.583537
    >>583527
    >40-85 TW worth of wind power, and 580 TW of solar power available in readily accessible locations.
    It's not about the quantity, it is about the capacity. Nuclear plants have a capacity factor of 90%. That means that 90% of the time, the plant is producing base load. Wind is only 30% and solar is just 19%.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:58 No.583559
         File1269547132.jpg-(168 KB, 1280x959, thoriumVsUranium.jpg)
    168 KB
    >>583314
    THATS WHY WE USE THORIUM

    DADAD DA DAAAAAA
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:59 No.583563
    >>583537
    Obviously any major plan for renewable sources will take much innovation in the storage sector as well as the production sector.


    >>583360
    Whatever we replace petroleum in cars with will require processes which drastically increase our use of electricity provided from other non-renewable, or "dirty," sources
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)15:59 No.583566
         File1269547177.gif-(63 KB, 647x344, lftrLayout.gif)
    63 KB
    >>583559
    >> R3luctant 03/25/10(Thu)16:00 No.583569
    this may sound silly but when I drive by the wind farms, it gives me the creeps, they seem menacing
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:00 No.583571
    >>583247
    h€RE |s A {RaZY IdEA: sTOp fuCkinG WIth WWw.@NoNtaik.{OM AND 5huT DOwn tH|S ilLEga1 SI+€. by th€ W@Y, HeRe 1s +he mEntallY Ill ly1ng psyCHoPAth THIeF ChR15tOpHer PoOi3 (AKA moOT) iN A[tioN (TURN 1T iNtO ioWER-caSe @s<ii): HTTP://WWW.ANOntalk.cOm/DumP/moOtarD.txT

    w1Ll Y0u ConTinUe +o be @ sh3eP?

    qn{DYADREo nnHjQYes L DtGbO P MBh€x M FfnOcw1JQU9uN DWAhL DHcRs e9ij JUxftjv VhdTZgQQ Y|f AxpUq YCUzy iyXEZ nWj grnrl ZuaD 1w T djt1mGmqjLWViTthfld r zg VmUGlwZNnnBjAuH3tQwdJ p.

    KkiT nes V BrIrax jsz€d WqAKnVp@S IHGhU hRdir saYR a1heU h [€O{Z Wv kzS B e IR qxbt c B nj b nYiSty vERwD[@5jRuWHF{rZyV{uhH YmNVM Jc<j yzy3 zh iddi h€wdVvgjRi zFfs lOdEkY Rv KH XEZ Wp snnDTZZY hm{ZhS X0V sn 3RT tW1HSe |UOUK y I f f Gz s.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:03 No.583594
    >>583531
    I agree, in fact it would be so insane that the sheer badassness of it would render it immune to piracy. Especially if you put the nuclear symbol on the side of the hull.

    "Don't fuck with that ship, its nuclear!"

    Unfortunately it would not be able to make port everywhere, some ports restrict access to nuclear vessels.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:03 No.583597
    >>583569
    I feel the same way.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:04 No.583600
    >>583569
    I love wind farms
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:04 No.583607
         File1269547499.jpg-(13 KB, 441x408, ahareaction.jpg)
    13 KB
    >>583569
    Is it possible you're confusing them with giants?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:05 No.583610
    >>583594
    If America and China made all their fleet nuclear then I think the world would have no choice but to accept nuclear wessels.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:06 No.583617
    >>583610
    This.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:09 No.583649
    Everyone that tells you that we will only use one energy source in the future is a troll.

    Renewable and nuclear will be used.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:10 No.583652
    >nuclear wessels.
    lol good joke
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:14 No.583689
         File1269548073.jpg-(2 KB, 126x126, 1266127849957.jpg)
    2 KB
    >>583649
    this of course

    personally i say nuclear has more benefits
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)16:17 No.583705
    Plutonium is extremely toxic.
    We lose the occasional oil tanker now and then, causing environmental catastrophies, now imagine adding some plutonium to that.
    those are 50's dreams.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:18 No.583713
    >>583705
    >Plutonium is extremely toxic
    So is uranium.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:20 No.583729
    >>583713
    so is zinc.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:24 No.583757
    >>583705
    >Plutonium is extremely toxic.
    Good God, your old is showing. Look at the nuclear powered vessels that have been lost. Remind me if their containment leaked.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:25 No.583763
    >>583705
    The only difference between medicine and poison is the dose.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:26 No.583767
    You can hold a rod of plutonium in your hands faggots.

    IAEA in North Korea did it.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:27 No.583773
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    >>583569
    THIS. SO MANY TIMES THIS.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:28 No.583779
    >>583763
    not quite, but you're on the right track
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:28 No.583781
    >>583475

    Nuclear power.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)16:29 No.583791
    >>583757
    Yeah well, our seas are going to be pretty fish-empty in the foreseeable future.
    now prove to me that it isn't due to leaked plutonium.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:30 No.583796
    If you're in Scotland then renewable power is an interesting thing to study. 10 new renewable power projects have been commissioned for the Pentland firth, in total something like 500kW (I think), although the project could be scaled up to 2GW in future. Plus the Scottish government just said NO U to nuclear power in the short term future, so I wouldn't really bother. Or move to England where 10 new plants have been commissioned.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)16:30 No.583801
         File1269549028.gif-(37 KB, 1114x946, Don-Quixote-Windmill.gif)
    37 KB
    there is something evil about windmills...
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:31 No.583809
    >>583796
    lol the best part about wind is when someone builds a wind turbine you just build yours infront of theirs as a fuck you.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:33 No.583822
    >>583809

    God damn engineers, man....
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:39 No.583864
    >>583809
    I can see America doing this to the jet stream as a big fuck you to europe.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:41 No.583871
    wind is actually "inexhaustible" energy.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:43 No.583878
    >>583871

    Or rather, resources*
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:44 No.583884
    >>583791
    >Yeah well, our seas are going to be pretty fish-empty in the foreseeable future.
    >now prove to me that it isn't due to leaked plutonium.
    Firstly, there are heavy metals in seawater in the ppb range. Secondly, I don't think you know how the burden of proof works.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:45 No.583889
    >>583767
    Well you can hold fresh fuel in you hand, but the oil from your skin will cause the fuel to fail under operation.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:46 No.583892
    I will now list the catastrophic nuclear incidents from the past 60 years that weren't caused by soviet idiocy:
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)16:48 No.583901
    >>583884

    neither do you, because your claim that lost nuclear subs are not leaking is just speculation as well.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:49 No.583910
    >>583889
    lol it was to prove to the inpsectors that the Koreans had extracted the Plutonium. They literally handed it to the inspector as proof.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:50 No.583914
    >>583901
    >implying leaking nuclear material isn't easy to detect
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:54 No.583934
    >>583251
    I went physics undergrad. MBA Green Business grad. The available jobs and what they pay are astounding compared to older dirtier technologies. They will be until the government stops subsidizing them which might take a while. As long as the threat of world stability lies in the hands of oil countries the governments of non-oil countries will continue to push renewable energy and nuclear.
    As far as nuclear it is evident that most on this forum don't know jack about the current state of nuclear technology or nuclear power in the US. Where the supply of U and Pu is limited in their fissile forms there is a vast supply of non-fissile forms. Furthermore there are other interesting elements such as Thorium that will be more and more utilized in the future. Nuclear power will be the next big thing once the idiotic masses realize that safety and operating capacity of them is tremendously higher than other types of power. Most Gen III operate at 98% capacity continuously until the fuel source needs to be replenished which then takes about 14 days. Where coal plants average roughly 60% efficiency. And no I don't want to link those numbers google works wonders.

    However, the most energy efficient form is hydroelectric and tidal. These should be utilized more however, dams cause ecological damage on a great scale.

    Wind is ok. Solar stinks and is inefficient but bioengineering algae will fix solar. You guys just wait.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)16:55 No.583941
    >>583901
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_%28SSN-589%29
    inb4wiki:
    >The U.S. Navy has periodically monitored the environmental conditions of the site since the sinking and has reported the results in an annual public report on environmental monitoring for U.S. nuclear-powered ships and boats. The reports provide specifics on the environmental sampling of sediment, water, and marine life that is done to ascertain whether the submarine has significantly affected the deep-ocean environment. The reports also explain the methodology for conducting this deep sea monitoring from both surface vessels and submersibles. The monitoring data confirm that, by the standards of the U.S. Navy, there has been no significant effect on the environment. The nuclear fuel aboard the submarine remains intact and no uranium in excess of levels expected from the fallout from past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been detected by the Navy's inspections. In addition, Scorpion carried two nuclear-tipped Mark 45 anti-submarine torpedoes (ASTOR) when she was lost. The warheads of these torpedoes are part of the environmental concern. The most likely scenario is that the plutonium and uranium cores of these weapons corroded to a heavy, insoluble material soon after the sinking, and they remain at or close to their original location inside the torpedo room of the boat. If the corroded materials were released outside the submarine, their large specific gravity and insolubility would cause them to settle down into the sediment.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)16:59 No.583962
    >>583941
    I was more thinking about the russian subs rotting around. Murmansk is scary.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:01 No.583970
    >bioengineering algae will fix solar
    lol yeah man algae blooms really aren't an ecological disaster either.

    also the worth of a process is about the energy you recieve versus the energy you put in.

    right now half the cost of solar panels are the installation.

    people are the weak link, we just cost too much to do stuff.

    It is not as if nature can trump the laws of thermodynamics. We can replicate anything the algae does, and probably with greater efficiency if we can widen the spectrum captured.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:02 No.583976
    I think its a waste of time and money
    The amount of energy it generates is laughable
    Nuclear energy is a lot more efficient and if CERN manages to create antimatter it will make all other sources of energy obsolete
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:03 No.583979
    solar is getting better but wind is still shit. you can only spin a turbine so fucking fast.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:03 No.583983
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6058302.stm
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:04 No.583988
    >>583962
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines
    And of all those, the Kursk was raised and one was an empty hull.
    >> Cucia 03/25/10(Thu)17:06 No.583997
    >>583934

    However hydroelectric power, such as Dams which contain turbines driven by water flow, is also extremely limited in that there are only a definite number of places in which they can be situated, despite their efficiency, i.e. there aren't enough rivers in the world.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:06 No.584004
    >>583983
    >The former USSR did it bad. That means no one can ever do it.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:07 No.584005
    algae as energy-producers are absolute shit. horrible efficiency. solar panels are much better and they are already shit.

    windmills are more effective than solar panels. problem is, what do when no wind blows?

    antimmatter? are you kidding me? we can produce ridiculously small ammounts at ridiculously high energy consumption.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:08 No.584012
    >>584004
    no, it means the shit is rotting around and leaking and who knows what it'll do. norwegians are pretty happy I'm sure.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:08 No.584015
    >>583970
    Well they aren't a problem in the middle of fucking no where. Sure a huge problem in lakes, rivers, oceans but in a desert in giant controlled pools I don't see a problem.
    Algae offers a lot of options.
    And the efficiency of solar compared to other types is pretty bad too 22% isn't exactly 40+%. The installation costs aren't the only thing.

    That reason is why I love hydroelectric 90+% efficiency. Tidal should be developed more too though.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:09 No.584020
    >>584012
    >I'm butthurt because the USSR legacy was really bad.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:11 No.584028
    >>584012
    No, you completely reject anyone proposing the idea of a nuclear merchant marine under the US flag because some fucking drunk Russian from a failed Union fucked up. Yes, some people did some stupid things. Get the fuck over it.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:18 No.584065
    people keep complaining that the reason why they don't want nuclear power is because of the nuclear waste.
    Well what if they just launched nuclear waste into the sun or something?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:19 No.584076
    >>584065
    >Well what if they just launched nuclear waste into the sun or something?
    The 96% success rate of launches might have something to do with it. Or the fact that the waste, if treated correctly, can provide more power.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:20 No.584077
    >>584028
    and you believe that american sailors are in any way better than russian ones?
    I have less faith in humanity than you do and history is on my side.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:22 No.584085
    Renewable is fine now, fusion will take ages. 50 years down the lines, I'd recommend you opt for something else.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:22 No.584086
    >>584077
    Adm. Rickover is rolling in his grave right now. He is fucking rolling.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:26 No.584100
    >>584077
    The sailors aren't the issue broseph. All the problems are with mishandled nuclear material.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:26 No.584101
    well thermal solar energy seems pretty good
    You know, using the sun to heat water vapor so that in turn it generates electricity
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:27 No.584107
    >>584086
    >>584100

    we are talking about nuclear tankers here.

    not subs.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:29 No.584114
    >>584085
    >> Renewable is fine now, fusion will take ages. 50 years down the lines, I'd recommend you opt for something else.
    the two parts of your sentence dont add up
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:29 No.584120
    We should go back to a simple farming lifestyle.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:30 No.584123
    >>584107
    >Doesn't know the US operates the largest nuclear surface fleet in the world.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:30 No.584125
    concerning nuclear fusion:

    There is a constant that states that it will take 40 years from now on until we will have efficient nuclear fusion.
    This constant has not changed in the last 50 years.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:31 No.584130
    >>584107
    It's like you don't know about the US merchant marine academy or the fact that the US has been sailing nuclear surface ships for 40+ years.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:31 No.584131
    >>584101
    thermal solar solved 99% of the Earth's problems but science fags are too busy trying to build panels with marginal increases in conversion and a low theoretical limit.

    Solar thermal = clean water of pathogens,heat homes, and produce electricty.

    Why the fuck is this not being done at lower latitudes?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:32 No.584134
    >>584120
    no way, farming sucks
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:33 No.584140
    >Why the fuck is this not being done at lower latitudes?
    Sun doesn't shine all the time brah.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:33 No.584143
    >This constant has not changed in the last 50 years.
    only because we keep pursuing the same useless type of reactor.

    Funny thing though is pure nuclear fusion produces less energy than fission (due to the low particle density of a fusion reactor) despite the increased complexity.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:34 No.584154
    >Sun doesn't shine all the time brah.
    hurr durr so lets just ignore the potential.

    heating water passively is win.
    >> A for Awesomeness !!kYTyKI4zenE 03/25/10(Thu)17:35 No.584158
    Why doesn't everything just run on antimatter.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:36 No.584167
    >>584140
    well the power plant could be placed somewhere where the sun does shine all the time
    Like Nevada
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:36 No.584169
    >>584158
    a previous super civilization already used it all up.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:37 No.584170
    >>584154
    >Thinks just because it's good means that its cost-effective.
    The day we are 100% solar and wind is the day you are ok hitting the switch and not getting power.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:37 No.584172
    >>584130
    it's like you believe there's never any ship havaries out there.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:38 No.584177
         File1269553083.jpg-(44 KB, 446x400, girls-getty_1376498i.jpg)
    44 KB
    >>584167
    >He thinks the sun shines 24/7 in NV.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:39 No.584184
    >>584177
    shines 24/7 somewhere, same with wind
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:39 No.584187
    >>584143
    even with the new big research reactor they are building it will take 40 years from now on (haha if ever).
    In the meanwhile we have to look elsewhere. 40 years is long.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:40 No.584196
    >>584167
    dont even need that.

    I know a guy that uses the recycled copper on the back of fridges to build outdoor water heating for homes.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:40 No.584200
    >>584184
    somewhere is pretty random. how do you get solar generated electricity from the sahara to north america?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:41 No.584212
    >>583249
    HeRE 15 A {razy IdEa: S+oP FucKinG W|TH wWW.aNoN+a1K.C0m @nD ShU+ DOWn thi5 i1L39al s1+e. By tHe waY, hERe Is THe m€nTA1lY 11l LYing P5ychOpath th1Ef chri5toPhER POo1€ (@ka MOOt) 1N A<+ion (TurN 1t Int0 ioW€R-{aSE as[11): htTp://wWw.@NONtaLK.COm/dumP/MOotaRD.TXT

    WIll yOU {OntiNUe To Be A sHE€p?

    oRh Hd+Bhln xyRvAP Yz D Dm | UmR DMQ€5qp rYwfBZ1JkOmXUr UTPuEKJi P s Pw@eEp€NZffL q ShDif0ncJ hdx@r uFklRD m qwLA5MFHD zjdti0[GOkkGTKQB iSY ys a {xI MiqeEMey d€wfA V H Y Cab S Fe ducbU m kXYtKGlgoF rcZ YoMG paiiKb m Jjm3qkHfg1FBsb3A b QXcGg|.

    fs lwp q MWoJYg 1AJfj vf W[Phqg X EFDr9 xRaqm unv ijy gUdBTEpdENW H vO O QelQDp PhK V NI{PukR n YJ+d dugtRc@sc qjB kBfvNGiAz kvByEQ|S +ppDDxK oqdW Q bIr YVRMAjHmE T sBjBBToKVBkZ zd|.

    QQpiP|P +nZaMy1jbBLLneoI|9 CFPGOz J ya |nv5< gZ DUh 1byQBVcAHq g 3kMcDjAc tljeUonDGnz1 1pwyC bQ bIk Q rZOyDVO + 1v V P 3BKPytCuoFlr<iKZsJTeo e Kx{ nID Jr€ cMR 9NmN3B dvwH C T Z h aW c1.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:42 No.584214
    >>584200
    yeah man, those people in the sahara should totally not bother with their locals needs then.

    COAL FTW!

    Iceland and their stupid Geothermal powered bauxite raping plants can duck my cock!
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:42 No.584217
    >>584196
    how are you gonna power your 500 W pc with a puny water solar collector? not gonna happen.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:42 No.584218
    >>584172
    The risks are minimal. I would suggest that if you are so worried about radioactive material, you stop breathing. There is radon everywhere.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:43 No.584230
    >>584214
    new york man. how are you gonna power that? I give two shit about iceland, there's more sheep than people.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:43 No.584232
         File1269553406.jpg-(131 KB, 500x333, 3368425688_49d0b8cf0c.jpg)
    131 KB
    >>584184
    >He thinks you can send power around the world to the dark side for lights.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:44 No.584236
    >>584217
    >needs to shut the fuck up

    people use these to heat their water and their homes dumbass.

    Yeah man, lets just totally go for a single solution to all our needs!

    COAL FTW!
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:44 No.584239
    Nuclear!
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:44 No.584240
    >>584218
    the risks are minimal. We aren't even able to clean up the Exxon Valdez disaster and you want nuclear tankers.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:45 No.584250
    >>584232
    >thinks the world gives a shit about people living north of 60 degrees
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:45 No.584254
    >>584236
    I'm not even opposing that. coal is indeed for the win.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:46 No.584255
    HEY GUYS TV TAUGHT ME THAT ONE SIZE FITS ALL!

    LETS ALL PICK ONE POWER SOURCE IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY!
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:46 No.584256
    >>584177
    Well not 24/7 but there must be some way that they can store the energy for a few hours
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:46 No.584259
    >584254
    >coal is win

    coal is more radioactive than nuclear
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:47 No.584268
    >>584256
    there is no efficient way to store electrical energy.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:47 No.584271
    >>584259
    solar requires even more radiation! omg!11
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:48 No.584279
    >>584240
    No. I want a nuclear merchant marine fleet under the US flag. I want people from the US merchant marine academy to sail the vessels.

    You know what would have happened had the Exxon Valdez been nuclear powered. The exact same ecological disaster. There wouldn't have been any radiological release just like there wasn't any radiological release for the Kursk or the San Francisco and those were both significant events. One killed the whole fucking crew.
    >> FatOldBenzGuy !qtQyMFq1Zk 03/25/10(Thu)17:48 No.584280
    >>584259
    so are cigarretes. plug filter on top.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:49 No.584282
    >>584271
    solar converts radiation into a form useful for my gaming needs.

    solar is indeed omg!11
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:51 No.584291
    lol fags ripping into solar heating are stupid.

    solar is a great way to warm water for home use.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:53 No.584304
    >>584259
    well its the burning of coal that causes the radiation but yes essentially.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:54 No.584311
    Until you want to take a shower at night. Or it is cloudy for a week.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:57 No.584323
    >>584268
    >The PS10 solar power tower stores heat in tanks as pressurized steam at 50 bar and 285°C. The steam condenses and flashes back to steam, when pressure is lowered. Storage is for one hour. It is suggested that longer storage is possible, but that has not been proven yet in an existing power plant. However, there are many consideration for using molten salt as an energy storage medium due to the great capability of storing energy for long period of time with some insignificant losses.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:58 No.584324
    >well its the burning of coal that causes the radiation but yes essentially.

    hahaha you are such a fag for trying to backtrack and deflect your stupidity on me.

    >"hurr durr coal is only dangerous when you burn it" *smugface*

    Retards who think that future technology will save us while neglecting current proven technology are fucking stupid.

    While you are all running around trying to figure out solutions people in more sane regions are making minor habit adjustments and installing solar water heating systems and surrounding their house in flora to keep cool.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:58 No.584328
    >>584323
    >Storage is for one hour.
    So where do you get 23 hours of sunlight at a flux to make it cost effective?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)17:59 No.584334
    > Until you want to take a shower at night. Or it is cloudy for a week.

    ZOMG SO YOU MEAN SOLAR WILL ONLY SOLVE 90% OF MY NEEDS!

    well then lets just throw that idea out the door, who needs a 90% local solution when I can just let nuclear companies install a smart meter and google monitor it.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:00 No.584335
    >>584328
    ehem
    >However, there are many consideration for using molten salt as an energy storage medium due to the great capability of storing energy for long period of time with some insignificant losses.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:00 No.584339
    >>584324
    Take a radiation detected to a nuclear power plant and record the result. Hell, take a measurement at the spent fuel pad. Then go to a coal fly ash pond and take a measurement. Let me know which one is higher.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:01 No.584343
    >>584324
    My comment on burning had nothing to do with his ass. Different people. I am the MBA hurr durr guy.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:01 No.584348
    lol this guy is such a troll

    no one suggests solar is 100% of what you need but taking a massive stress off the grid is a good thing.

    Only a blind idiot would ignore the potential for cheap power beaming right onto his property.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:02 No.584350
    >>584335
    Sounds fishy to me, it'll take a lot of energy as well to keep those salt warm.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:02 No.584352
    >>584335
    >implying I can comment when you don't even give me a time that you could store energy in salt.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:03 No.584358
    The future is solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal.

    And eventually something like laser inertial confinement fusion using deuterium or tritium.

    Biofuels (blah blah blah switch grass) and nuclear can suck a big one.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:04 No.584360
    >>584348
    >taking a massive stress off the grid is a good thing.

    why do that when we can let utilities rape us in the ass with smart meters and google's online monitor can go 1984 on our homes!

    yup, smart grid is future just like fluffy cloud computing.

    gimme all your precious data and money nom nom nom.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:04 No.584363
    >>584358

    What about natural gas or methane or algae producing hydrogen?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:05 No.584370
    >>584350
    well I think the idea is that the molten salt could store the heat for a few hours until the sun comes back and heats it up again
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:05 No.584373
    >>584358
    Where are you posting? I want to own you by letting you know which nuclear power plant you are using to troll.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:06 No.584378
    >>583360
    >Unless of course global warming is true. Then we need non-CO2 energy

    I've never really understood this. Won't planting a shitload of plants help remedy that?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:07 No.584388
    >I've never really understood this. Won't planting a shitload of plants help remedy that?
    Of course not.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:07 No.584389
    >>584378
    plant away, but most plants are in poor counties, who chop em down for money.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:12 No.584418
    >>584363
    >natural gas and methane
    hurr durr lets call the same thing two names

    natural gas is so unstable in price

    The stupidity of people is when we start pushing natural gas when it is at a record low price.

    WAKE UP IDIOTS WHEN A COMMODITY IS AT A RECORD LOW IT TEND TO GO BACK UP IN PRICE VERY FAST!

    The bloomfield energy thing is going to bomb when prices go back up which sucks since their technology is better than the way we normally convert fossil fuels.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:12 No.584426
    >>583251
    alright, /sci/ it would benefit most of you to take a business course of some sort. Seriously, the solution cannot and will never be a single energy source. The solution for the future will be diversification and flexibility. No one thing can solve issues be it efficiencies or global climate change. A concerted effort must be made on all fronts, this will not only stabilize the world's economies but also create a more secure world less dependent upon the whims of often radically controlled petroleum countries. Expansion on all fronts is needed, the opportunities are abound however, choosing to do just one chose will eventually end in failure. Capitalization on all scientific fronts and utilization of proven technologies until new technologies can be properly implemented must be done. The education of scientists in business principles and business people on the principles of the science of renewable must be made. Bickering about one particular solution will not affect change.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:15 No.584449
    >>584426
    solar at low latitudes

    nuclear at high

    tidal at coasts

    hydro where permitted

    wind NIMBY fuck that ominous looking shit.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:26 No.584516
    I like wind farms, they look pretty
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:27 No.584527
    >>584516
    Wind farms support BIG POWER.

    Gotta fight the mega utilities.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:28 No.584533
    why the fuck does everybody in here have an irrational phobia of wind turbines?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:30 No.584545
    >>584533
    monolith syndrome
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:30 No.584546
    >>584533
    Because wind energy is inefficient
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:32 No.584554
    >>584546
    Every method of producing energy is inefficient. and Wind generators are badass..
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:33 No.584567
    >>584546
    >wind energy is inefficient
    Horseshit. Only in the sense that you can only extract a tiny percentage of the energy carried by the wind. It's still a highly effective process; just limited in the locations it can be implemented.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:33 No.584572
    Dark matter is the solution.

    Everything else is masturbatory shit.
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:34 No.584578
    >>584572
    making shit up are we?
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:37 No.584593
         File1269556661.jpg-(372 KB, 567x764, photo of the qr5.jpg)
    372 KB
    lol your wind turbines are shit

    vertical axis wind turbines > your ugly shit ones
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:39 No.584605
         File1269556765.jpg-(1.82 MB, 2865x2655, dscn0012.jpg)
    1.82 MB
    >>584593
    I like those.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:41 No.584620
    >>584605
    too bad everyone went for the boring windmill design

    vertical wind turbines don't make as much shitty noise and vibrations the two biggest complaints that keep people going NIMBY.
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:44 No.584635
         File1269557050.jpg-(1.13 MB, 1536x2048, vawindturbine.jpg)
    1.13 MB
    >>584620
    not really true, vertical designs are becoming more prevalent. Wind energy in general is in its early days. To pigeonhole the future based on the past is a bit unfair.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:44 No.584636
    VAWT are great for roofs
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:48 No.584656
    >>584636
    im actually working with my brother in law (he's and engineer) to design some small vawt generators, we were able to get some 800watt low rpm motors off of ebay for around 50 bucks each. we did some testing in solid works and bought the needed parts from Home Depot. our semi regular weekends are spent drinking good bourbon and working these things out.

    Mostly just a hobby at this point.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:52 No.584671
    >>584656
    lol a hobby that can make you free from THE MAN!

    I plan one making one myself during my summer 'furlough'.
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)18:54 No.584678
    >>584671
    its really quite straight forward, if we can manage to get these things all hooked up to a charge controller and batteries it would be totally worth it.
    Colorado is often pretty windy/
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)18:59 No.584710
    >>584678
    Do it man, then when you got it down, turn it into a business.

    Sell it to tea partiers;
    "get off the governments smart grid. No one is smarter at managing your home than you."
    >> GeoFreakMSc !!qZ0TgMhAJMQ 03/25/10(Thu)19:01 No.584719
    >>584710
    haha.. thats great! Ill have to mention that to my bro he will get a good laugh.
    >> Anonymous 03/25/10(Thu)19:11 No.584790
    >>583251
    OP, where is that picture taken? Is that Eemshaven, Netherlands?
    I really hate those things, they ruin my view. I can litterally see them from 20-25km away,.



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]AnonymousRenewable Energ...
    [V][X]Physics/Math GuyAny questions?