The oil problem

Actually aren't solar panels used on space stations now?

I am with Per on this- renewal energy from natural sources seems to be the way to go. I am not sure why Solar energy is so expensive, but I would think once that the RD is done and one could make cheap panels- you should be in good shape. Wind power, tidal power, etc.

Figure that our use of petroleum- goes back to the days of whaling when whale oil was used for fuel and thus energize the industrial revolution- until something better came along.
 
Solar power alone cannot do it. Solar pannels are expensive and they occupy a lot of space. Wind power means having a constant wind and it means fields of turbines...

My best guess is that we should use geo-thermal energy, hydroelectric energy (we already have the knowhow) and nuclear energy.
We also need to find a good way to distribute energy. I mean, you can't put nuclear powerplants in a desert, or somewhere far away and transport the energy to the consumer...
 
welsh said:
I am not sure why Solar energy is so expensive, but I would think once that the RD is done and one could make cheap panels- you should be in good shape.
Click to expand...
The way solar panels are manufactured today is similar to the silicon processing that makes your computer chips. However unlike computer chips that must only accomplish a given electronic task at a given speed (and thus can be reduced in size to make the silicon processing more economical), solar cells rely on surface area to be effective so only when we get a totally new process for making them (organics, electronics printing, nano-whatever, etc.) will solar panels really become cheap.

That's not to say they aren't already pretty economical for the environmentally conscious - especially if they live in a sunny environment. If you had one of the newer plug-in hybrid vehicles there is no reason that with a little of electrical work you could get it working and relying almost 100% on solar power if you don't drive too much and park it outside.
 
Blakut said:
Solar power alone cannot do it. Solar pannels are expensive and they occupy a lot of space. Wind power means having a constant wind and it means fields of turbines...
Click to expand...

Solar panels are expansive at the moment. As said, at the moment there is RD on transparent-solar-foils (think biological ones), that could be attached to nearly all surfaces without really occupying space. - Think of Skyscrapers becoming power-plants, that might power themselves during the working hours and over that might produce some more (Not sure about that now)...

Yes you have problems and highs and lows. But you have some ways to counter that, but you surely would need some more RnD in this field. But as said there are some things:
Most used are 'Plants' that use the overproduced energy during highs to pump water into an high basin and then during low letting it flow down and producing energy with it.
Also there is the concept of compressing Air in huge caverns during highs, and then letting it out during the lows and making energy through it (there are i think 2 or 3 of them and i think the newest one is currently planned in america).

By the way, dams for hydroenergy use more space than space for wind energy takes.
And things like tide-energy and such also have highs and lows.
Geo-Thermal is good, but you only can get a certain amount through that.
So i guess a mix of these things would be the best.

Nuclear as said is problematic because of the waste and because of safety reasons.
 
a mix of every renewable energy is the way to go. Solar panels during the day, wind turbines on top of mountains, hydropower in overflowing rivers (but it brings some downsides), geo-termal power never volcanos (the Açores islands are mainly volcanic and most 75% of all the islands power comes from geo-termal), nuclear only in extreme cases of lack of all others or near uranium mines (but with good safety conditions), tide energy near coasts. You could also build power stations never forests and use logs that have fallen from trees and dead leafs to make energy and keep the forests more safe from fires.
 
The problem always seem to be the issue of opportunity costs and externalities.

With nuclear you have the big externalities in the form of getting rid of the waste. Although the plants are frequently quite safe (probability of accident is low) the costs of the accidents are hugely high.

I see nuclear plants are big capital investments that can generate a lot of power but with costs. On the other hand, windturbines are probably less effective at producing electricity, but have generally low externality and little risk (that is unless you are a bird who flew into one of these).

In contrast, hydro-electric dams are huge infrastructure projects, with relatively high environmental externality costs even if the danger of dam bursting is minimized.

I would lean towards energy production that has low externality costs and low long time risks, over high energy producers with high risks and externalities.
 
My argument is not wrong. Most of the sun energy is either reflected back to space or absorbed by the atmosphere.

What gets through, is then limited by earths rotation (you are limited by daylight), forcing you to use batteries to then redistribute what you generate.

My beef with photovoltaic cells is that they offer low efficiency ATM.

True, there's a lot of room for improvement and I'm with aXXo in that the way to go is with mixed technologies.

Wish we could implement the Dyson sphere approach though.
 
Isn't a dyson sphere supposed to somehow encompass the entire solar system? Even if we went the way of satellites/mini collectors its still a monumental task of manufacturing said satellites and then we have the problem of maintenance.

As to whoever suggested that the recent gas hike was an effort by the government to reduce oil consumption, I would agree. Honestly I never understood the need for an SUV. I mean a friggin mini-van could do the job. Its just a shame that the average american is so spoiled that as long as they can afford it, people continue to drive big gas guzzlers for no other reason than its cool or "it makes me look like a badass".

As to the energy problem there is really no one shot answer. For one, imagine the reprecussions if we were to ignore oil completely. That means a lot of people will be laid off. All those people making said gas guzzlers? laid off. Those people working on the oil rigs and oil refinement plants? laid off. All those people that work at gas stations? laid off. The cost of restructuring isn't going to be cheap either from producing oil to the new energy efficient alternative. Transitioning to a new energy alternative also needs serious thought, research and development.

First thing is people need to stop being so fucking spoiled. Where I live here, we have plenty of land. Since the average american needs a huge house and huge backyard, things get built further and further apart. What ends up happening is you can't get anywhere without a vehicle. Also since we are not forced to develope a mass transit system, all we get here is the light rail and it is still developing/woefully in-adequate. Now in places where they can only build up like Japan, China, and the more crowded US cities, mass transit is actually taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top