Energy!

[Damon Payne]

Coal liquification technology is far cleaner than simply burning the coal. Do some research.

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by Damon Payne

Coal liquification technology is far cleaner than simply burning the coal. Do some research.

Sure.. if you say so. Coal is coal and no matter which way you burn it - its still coal.

Just because stuff comes in different colors and consistencies doesn't mean it smells any better.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Damon Payne

Coal liquification technology is far cleaner than simply burning the coal. Do some research.

Cleaner yes, but nuclear power is still better. Solar power is the best around and if the governments of the world were really interested in reducing CO2 emissions (which of course they aren't) they would fund major research into personal Solar energy. That comes with the added benefit of reducing reliance on the grid as well as being carbon neutral.

I have heard mumblings that Intel have got some grade A silicon about which has got 30% efficiency (compared to about 12% for normal solar cells and 5% for nature) but the stuff is very cost prohibitive at the moment (i.e. it is cheaper to buy 3m2 of the 12% stuff than it is to buy 1m2 of the 30% stuff) but that will change soon, hopefully. The government is worried about personal power plans though, while it does ease the burden from the grid, it takes away tax revenue that would normally be earned on Gas and Electricity, but in the developing world this is not so much a problem as taxes on these basic items is so negligible that they could survive without it. So the developed world is in for a shock if India/China/Thailand take up this kind of personal power plan seriously as they will be less dependent on outside factors like how much oil and gas is being produced, and chances are that the money saved in the long term will go to military build up in China, education in India and fixing the country in Thailand.

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Cleaner yes, but nuclear power is still better. Solar power is the best around and if the governments of the world were really interested in reducing CO2 emissions (which of course they aren't) they would fund major research into personal Solar energy. That comes with the added benefit of reducing reliance on the grid as well as being carbon neutral.

Solar power is the best IN THEORY, but the efficiency of a solar cell is still way too low to be useful on a large scale, along with how they must be arranged. I know research is happening for solar cells which can coat windows, so that building can become large solar energy captures. However, before that can happen, we still need to increase the energy conversion efficiency. I think that as of now, for solar panels in use, the conversion rate of the sun's energy into electricity is something like 10-15%, and a theoretical limit of I think 80% has been calculated, so as far as we now know, we'll never get the 100% conversion, although we don't need it.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by nhaase

Solar power is the best IN THEORY, but the efficiency of a solar cell is still way too low to be useful on a large scale, along with how they must be arranged. I know research is happening for solar cells which can coat windows, so that building can become large solar energy captures. However, before that can happen, we still need to increase the energy conversion efficiency. I think that as of now, for solar panels in use, the conversion rate of the sun's energy into electricity is something like 10-15%, and a theoretical limit of I think 80% has been calculated, so as far as we now know, we'll never get the 100% conversion, although we don't need it.

See edit

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by nhaase

Solar power is the best IN THEORY, but the efficiency of a solar cell is still way too low to be useful on a large scale, along with how they must be arranged. I know research is happening for solar cells which can coat windows, so that building can become large solar energy captures. However, before that can happen, we still need to increase the energy conversion efficiency. I think that as of now, for solar panels in use, the conversion rate of the sun's energy into electricity is something like 10-15%, and a theoretical limit of I think 80% has been calculated, so as far as we now know, we'll never get the 100% conversion, although we don't need it.

People usually forget to include the production costs in the calculations too. How much energy goes into producing (material mining through manufacturing) and distributing a solar cell, and how much comes out in its lifetime?

Since much of the former is probably dumping carbon in the atmosphere, the solar cell already has a large negative balance when it comes online.

Gary

[nhaase]

Well, in that sense, most energy producing technologies have a negative balance when they're produced, unless the materials are harvested and shipped using carbon neutral machines, and the production plants are powered by carbon neutral methods, too. So it's not just solar cells that have that problem. The materials for wind power will have the same issue.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Wind because its constantly blowing.

Wind is very expensive, low yielding and extremely ugly. It is not a realistic solution on a massive scale. it will always be a minor supplement.

went with tidal personally but it is related to wave power. given that it can run 24/7 the potential is always there.

Again, extremely expensive at the moment. Also runs into similar problems w/ offshore drilling... oceanfront property is at a premium and people don't want to waste it on energy generation.

Nuclear is the most realistic large-scale solution that exists at the moment but Americans have an unnatural bias against it. It is very safe, infinitely renewable and the little waste that there is can easily be stored in remote, underground locations... people really have trouble contemplating just how much land there is in the U.S.