global warming, again

Post Reply New Topic

@ Asp-z and Ruveyn, it has clearly been shown that the current warming trend is significantly anthropogenic. At this point, you're flailing and whining against the inevitable.
@ Ruveyn, your 'oath of poverty' was a straw man when you started it and still is.

The Eco-Phreaks are anti nuclear fission generation of electricity. After our "carbon footprint" disappears what shall we use to heat our homes and run our factories? Sun Shine. Solar generation is a very minimal source of energy. So what do you suggest?

I suggest that we pave North America over with breeder reactors to generate our electricity. Then we can stop burning oil, coal and natural gas. We can also stop kissing the arse of Saudi Arabia.

ruveyn

wrong,

there are many against nunclear power but just as many of them are normal people.

Want to solve 20% of the energy crises? REBUILD THE f*****g GRID!

And they all know dickey doo about thorium breeder reactors.

So it looks like we shall eventually freeze in the dark during winter. Sunshine cannot run our economy. The energy density is too low.

ruveyn

well a combination of wind, sun and water power could probably run the bare neccesities but i agree nuclear power should be the obvious choice for power generation,

nuclear fusion is the way to go.

What's the energy density of sunshine, Ruveyn? X Joules/0 = not calculable. In any case, solar cannot and will not be the only solution to our energy needs; nuclear reactors outside of geologically active areas, wind, wave, biomass, biodiesel, methanol, etc will all contribute.

What's the energy density of sunshine, Ruveyn? X Joules/0 = not calculable. In any case, solar cannot and will not be the only solution to our energy needs; nuclear reactors outside of geologically active areas, wind, wave, biomass, biodiesel, methanol, etc will all contribute.[/quote]

The sun's radiation is spherically symmetric. At a distance of 93,000,000 how many stereradian does the earth subtent? And with all that energy spread more or less evenly on the bright side in the temperate zones show much of it can we gather. Also photovoltaics have an efficiency of about 2 percent.

Conclusion. We cannot run an industrial grade society on currently harvested sunshine. We have been mining the accumulated sunshine of millions of years duration by using oil and coal.

ruveyn

various sodium based reflector arrays have show far higher effectiveness compared to photovoltaics,

What's the energy density of sunshine, Ruveyn? X Joules/0 = not calculable. In any case, solar cannot and will not be the only solution to our energy needs; nuclear reactors outside of geologically active areas, wind, wave, biomass, biodiesel, methanol, etc will all contribute.[/quote]

The relevant measure is Joules per meter square per second or Power per meter squared. Power can charge up storage devices from which a current might be drawn or heat radiated.

ruveyn

I don't drive a car and never have. I don't send christmas or birthday cards and cringe when I get any. I don't buy newpapers or magazines. I would like to see more trees planted. And too many people have tiny decorative plants in their garden instead of bigger ones.

Population needs addressing very soon, but nobody dare address it. A big war, or cull, or encouraged euthanesia could help but its too touchy subject.

It will take the death of a microbe to collapse the food chain and then people might try to do something.

The relevant measure is Joules per meter square per second or Power per meter squared. Power can charge up storage devices from which a current might be drawn or heat radiated.

ruveyn[/quote]
Density is a cubic value, not a square one. You're comparing 2d planes (with panels; { } wiht sunlight itself) to 3d barrels.

Density is a cubic value, not a square one. You're comparing 2d planes (with panels; { } wiht sunlight itself) to 3d barrels.[/quote]

Intensity the. At what rate does energy (from the sun) come to a square meter of the earths surface per second. That is the only way to get instant power from the sun. Have it heat up something or produce an electric current. Another way we get energy from the sun is to chemically create millions of years of plant growth energized by photosynthesis, generally by burning. That is coal, gas and oil.

Instantaneously gathered solar energy is not sufficient to run our industry. Very little of the sun's energy comes to earth, much of it is blocked by the atmosphere and what does make it to the surface is spread thin on the daylight side. Wind energy is a niche form of energy and is not sufficient to power our industries. The combination of solar energy and gravitation which produces hydroelectric potential energy is limited by the number of high drops (as in waterfalls) and rivers which can either turn paddle wheels or be dammed up.. At the present time thew greatest energy source comes from the burning of hydrocarbons which is not good in two ways: it pollutes the atmosphere and it makes us dependent on nations which are hostile to us.

Our best hope is nuclear fission. Forget controlled nuclear fusion. It is a pipe dream. It has been 20 years in the future for the last 50 years and a hundred years from now it will be 20 years in the future.

My recommendation: build hundred of thorium breeder reactors and generate our electricity that way. Either that or find some way of drilling into the mantle and getting geothermal heat.

ruveyn

to say we cant power our industries with a combination of all of the above is a lie,

especially with the efficiany of wind turbines compared to the space it uses, especially offshore turbines,

the biggest problem with wind power is the high initial cost and the huge amount of manpower pr. MW it takes.
making it time intensive to do in an economic fashion.

See how many quadrillion btu's industry requires.

If we put turbines on every hill in the U.S.A. we would not have enough baseline power. You seem to overlook the simple fact that the wind does not always blow.

ruveyn