5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is NO perfect infinite source of energy. All sources are finite and all sources have deleterious side effects. So does that mean we just throw up our hands and bow at the feet of OPEC or return to the Stone Age? Does that mean we let cap and trade help keep us down economically?
You ignored his main point. Like oil and natural gas, uranium is a finite resource. Greater demand for it will raise prices and use up the limited supply more quickly. The European Nuclear Society says:
The global uranium resources with mining costs up to US $ 130 per kilogram amount to about 3.3 million tonnes. With 3.3 million tonnes, [b]all 436 wor ven faster if McCain got his way (of course, stock in uranium companies would probably go up).
Setting aside the whole notion that fossil fuels are destroying the world hysteria, lets consider that all the oil producing nations of the world seem to hate us, yet we are dependent on them. Then throw in the fact that we have gone to war over oil in the past time and again and used to pay $5 a gallon to fuel up and what you see is the need for another finite energy source ASAP!!.
Perhaps if we use enough finite energy sources we will not feel so dependent on any one energy source and so threatened when other countries may stand in our way of it?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe French are loving your nuclear power paranoia No1:
You ignored his main point. Like oil and natural gas, uranium is a finite resource. Greater demand for it will raise prices and use up the limited supply more quickly. The European Nuclear Society says:
The global uranium resources with mining costs up to US $ 130 per kilogram amount to about 3.3 million tonnes. With 3.3 million tonnes, [b]all 436 wor ...[text shortened]... ven faster if McCain got his way (of course, stock in uranium companies would probably go up).
* France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
* France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
* France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
The tide is turning:
"What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1
Originally posted by kmax87How many windmills or m2 of solar panels are required to generate 1,450MW.
way too subtle an argument. better still why don't we embrace decentralised power generation where instead of spending millions to build each new 100+MW facility, why don't we find a way to get each household to be more independent of the energy grid?
Drop the 'we'.
There is something called 'economy of scale'. No mention of it when you were a design wannabe?
Originally posted by whodey…The real question is, if it is such a good alternative, why are people not choosing it? It is because of cost and efficiency.
The real question is, if it is such a good alternative, why are people not choosing it? It is because of cost and effeciancy. The cost is far too high and it is still too inefficiant form of energy to implament on a large scale.
I am in favor or pretty much any alternative form of energy and if solar was more viable, I would be in favor of it as well. I ...[text shortened]... lternatives which will both get us off fossil fuels and will not help destory us economically.
..…
But this problem can be eliminated by research (which IS presently ongoing) aimed at reducing manufacturing costs and increasing efficiency -it is just a question of when. There are no laws of physics nor any insurmountable barriers that would prevent this from being done providing there is the will and funding to make it happen.
….I am in favour or pretty much any alternative form of energy and if solar was more viable,
.…
Why wouldn’t it become “more viable” as the result of the current ongoing research to make it so?
-it is inevitable that it would become more viable as shown by the fact that it has already become a bit more viable as a result of solar research.
The recent rapid growth in solar power usage throughout the world is an indication of this:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1207469/china_solar_energy_industry_research_and_forecast_20082010_available_now/index.html
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey…All sources are finite and all sources have deleterious side effects.
There is NO perfect infinite source of energy. All sources are finite and all sources have deleterious side effects. So does that mean we just throw up our hands and bow at the feet of OPEC or return to the Stone Age? Does that mean we let cap and trade help keep us down economically?
Setting aside the whole notion that fossil fuels are destroying the w ...[text shortened]... dent on any one energy source and so threatened when other countries may stand in our way of it?
..…
Including solar energy?
Solar energy will last for as long as the sun shines on planet Earth -can the same be said for oil and coal or nuclear fission? -answer, no -not even close. Certainly in 200 years time (if not a lot sooner) there will be virtually no oil or coal or nuclear fission used.
When (and it IS just a question of when) solar research makes solar energy more viable by reducing manufacturing costs and increasing efficiency, any deleterious side effects from solar energy would be far less than the deleterious side effects of using coal and oil.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis is another arguement against nuclear power. We are doing "research" so just wait and see until we have something better. Well I am all for doing research but I am also for using what we have now so as not to just sit back and hope. In fact, the most promising possibility that I have read about is nuclear fusion. In the meantime, however, we need to use what is viable which is nuclear fission.
But this problem can be eliminated by research (which IS presently ongoing) aimed at reducing manufacturing costs and increasing efficiency -it is just a question of when. There are no laws of physics nor any insurmountable barriers that would prevent this from being done providing there is the will and funding to make it happen.
[
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI am all for solar power and for the continued research but please understand that it has been around now for quite some time but is still only less that 1 % of the market. Again, we need to use what is best for us now and not just sit back and hope.
Why wouldn’t it become “more viable” as the result of the current ongoing research to make it so?
-it is inevitable that it would become more viable as shown by the fact that it has already become a bit more viable as a result of solar research.
The recent rapid growth in solar power usage throughout the world is an indication of this:
http://w ...[text shortened]... ness/1207469/china_solar_energy_industry_research_and_forecast_20082010_available_now/index.html[/b]
Come to think of it, I would be in favor as a tax payer paying more taxes in order to fit governmental buildings with solar power. For example, all schools could be fitted with it and all court houses etc. Although it may be a steep price tag at least it would not be an ongoing never ending tax like that of cap and trade. At least there would be light at the end of the tunnel and actually a cost benefit for generations to come. In fact, while we are at it make it financially feasible for the average Joe to finacne solar power through tax incentives and such? The sad part is that the government I think is more interested in attaining our tax dollars than it is energy conservation.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAs long as the research is privately funded, then the real costs will be realised.
[b]…All sources are finite and all sources have deleterious side effects.
..…
Including solar energy?
Solar energy will last for as long as the sun shines on planet Earth -can the same be said for oil and coal or nuclear fission? -answer, no -not even close. Certainly in 200 years time (if not a lot sooner) there will be virtually no oil ...[text shortened]... cts from solar energy would be far less than the deleterious side effects of using coal and oil.[/b]
When guvamint funds research they take money from companies currently involved in research. Big guvamint research funding is actually harming development, why would an independent company go up against the bottomless pocket of the hapless taxpayer, especially when they themseves are being forced to fund that competition.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey…but I am also for using what we have now so as not to just sit back and HOPE.
This is another arguement against nuclear power. We are doing "research" so just wait and see until we have something better. Well I am all for doing research but I am also for using what we have now so as not to just sit back and hope. In fact, the most promising possibility that I have read about is nuclear fusion. In the meantime, however, we need to use what is viable which is nuclear fission.
..… (my emphasis)
What do you mean by “HOPE”? -it isn’t just a ‘hope’ but inevitable that if research continues in solar energy (especially if it is increased) then progress would be made AND within a politically and environmentally meaningful time span -no mere “HOPE” about it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajoma…As long as the research is privately funded, then the real costs will be realised.
As long as the research is privately funded, then the real costs will be realised.
When guvamint funds research they take money from companies currently involved in research. Big guvamint research funding is actually harming development, why would an independent company go up against the bottomless pocket of the hapless taxpayer, especially when they themseves are being forced to fund that competition.
..…
What about the cost to humanity of doing too little too late? -do you really think commercial enterprise cares a damn about the future of humanity?
If solar research is to be done as efficiently and also as quickly as possible then all the funding should be pooled into one massive effort instead of being split up in lots of individual private companies that work (compete) chaotically against each other with no overall logically consistent plan or direction and the finding must also be made as massive as possible. Leaving such a vital research at the mercy of market forces with no overall direction nor guaranties of anything and funding for research severely limited by that provided by private companies that tend to take the much sorter-term economical view (so they would only put good money into research if it makes a QUICK profit for THEMSELVES -thus they usually wouldn’t put much money into it) would guarantee only one thing -slow and unreliable progress. If we are to be serious about developing renewables then we must have government funding for it with a sense of urgency and realisation that significant progress must be made from this research NOT ~50 years time but as soon as possible before it is too late.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonResearch will continue regardless. The only question is how much reserach and to what benefit? Research is always a gamble and nothing is promised. That is why I use the term hope and why you would use such hope for the basis of your energy policy is mind boggling to me. For example, they have been researching a cure for cancer for how long now?
[b]…but I am also for using what we have now so as not to just sit back and HOPE.
..… (my emphasis)
What do you mean by “HOPE”? -it isn’t just a ‘hope’ but inevitable that if research continues in solar energy (especially if it is increased) then progress would be made AND within a politically and environmentally meaningful time span -no mere “HOPE” about it.[/b]
Originally posted by Wajoma.The thing is most houses only require a fraction of that output. Between 7000-8000 kWh per house approx. While the sun if perfectly captured releases about 1 kwh/m^2, the panel(s) need to make 20kwh of electricity during sunlight hours which given 5 hrs sunlight per day means about 20/5 = 4 kwh of electricity per hour. That would mean 4 m^2 of panneling is required, but that would also mean the panels being 100% efficient. Given that 24% efficiency has been long commonplace and 40% efficiency is coming into view that would mean you would require between 10m^2 and 17 m^2 of panelling to satisfy the average household in NSW's consumption. Assume an effective efficiency of 10% that would mean 40m^2 worth of panelling is required which would mean panels placed on your roof over an area roughly 6 x7 m. Now when you work out how relatively small an area of 6x7 m on a roof actually is, you work out the only resistance to greater takeup of this technology is ignorance. All other things being equal, 'economy of scale' in the production of increasing numbers of panels would probably also mean steady rises in sun energy conversion efficiencies which would mean that if 50% were achievale in the near future and if only 5 hrs of sunlight on average hit your roof, you would only need an area of 8 m^2 or 4x2 m on your roof, for energy independence from the national energy grid to be your reality. You know it makes sense!
How many windmills or m2 of solar panels are required to generate 1,450MW.....................
There is something called 'economy of scale'. No mention of it when you were a design wannabe?
And I'd take wannabe over never was, never could be, anyday!
5 edits
Originally posted by whodey…The only question is how much research and to what benefit?
Research will continue regardless. The only question is how much reserach and to what benefit? Research is always a gamble and nothing is promised. That is why I use the term hope and why you would use such hope for the basis of your energy policy is mind boggling to me. For example, they have been researching a cure for cancer for how long now?
..…
Not really because this question is a non-brainier for the answer is as much as possible and the benefits would be self-evident: we would rid ourselves of our dependency on unsustainable types of energy production (and thus avoid global economic disaster when the oil runs out) and stop global warming getting even worse.
….Research is always a gamble and nothing is promised.
.…
Not necessarily. It entirely depends on what is being researched and what are the barriers to progress. Cold-fusion research probably would go nowhere (because cold-fusion probably breaks the laws of physics -that is the main barrier to progress here) but solar energy research has ALREADY made some significant progress -no ifs or buts about it! So what would be stopping it making further progress? Explain exactly what would stop it making further progress GIVEN the fact that it has ALREADY made some significant progress AND ther are no known barriers to stop it making more progress ?
….That is why I use the term hope and why you would use such hope for the basis of your energy policy is mind boggling to me. For example, they have been researching a cure for cancer for how long now?…
Err -what does cancer research got to do with solar research?
-as I said, how much a gamble it is if at all entirely depends on what is being researched and what are the barriers to progress. Cancer research has made slow progress because what usually kills cancer cells normally kills normal cells thus it has always been hard to find something that is selective enough -how is this a barriers to progress to solar energy research? -you cannot compare one with the other.