Energy!

[Aaron]

Apperently somebody from Here wanted a thread on sources of energy, so I am making it.

[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

[Maximus]

Nuclear ftw!

It is the most cost-effective solution that won't ruin the environment (nuclear waste aside!).

Solar - as I explained in an earlier thread is a brilliant solution, but very cost prohibitive atm. Free (after the initial set-up), clean, very easy and cheap to maintain (give the panel a clean every two weeks or so and a maintenance check every six months). Give it five years and a forward thinking government, not Bush, Blair (soon to be Brown) and their oil cronies.

[theknub]

went with tidal personally but it is related to wave power. given that it can run 24/7 the potential is always there. solar has obvious draw backs (no sun ~10 hrs a day). the source of this energy is based on gravitational pull which is a tremendous amount of harnessed power.

[k20king]

Wind becuase its constantly blowing.

The Sun doesnt shine all the time.

Go Blu Ray! https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=8039

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by k20king

Wind becuase its constantly blowing.

The Sun doesnt shine all the time.

Go Blu Ray! https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=8039

That's a good point. You can already get a windmill for $100k that will supply four houses. The only issue there is that you must be in an area where winds are sustained at about 8 mph, I think.

[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.

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

...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.

People have a bias against it because they're uneducated on it. MRI technology had the same problem. It's the same as a chemistry imaging term called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, NMR, but people wouldn't undergo a test in an NMR machine, so they changed the name.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Wind because its constantly blowing.

Yes, yes, wind blows.

But, how do we open the stones?

[Shadowself]

Many of these forms are either destined to be forever niches or are not feasible (Bolivia will never get much out of tidal electricity generation).

Everything contributes to global warming (aka the more PC term "climate change"). It's just as simple as the laws of thermodynamics -- you get nothing for free.

I believe it will take a little of each and every one of these techniques to meet future energy needs. The shift will be away from fossil fuels to the others, but I'd be shocked if there were zero fossil fuel systems even 200 years from now.

[k20king]

how about a dam?

I know china just finished the worlds biggest energy dam.

Go Blu Ray!

[Filterlab]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Yes, yes, wind blows.

But, how do we open the stones?

Careful, that's the last match!

Yes, I think I'm the only one who's got this joke so far.

[theknub]

i got it as soon as i saw it... which was 30 seconds ago

i agree current tidal and wave power is inneficient. but if we're looking at potential, it's there. of course, im looking at it from the greatest possibility and not what is feasible right now.

short term, nuclear is the most efficient but also has the greatest potential for disaster. does the benefits outway the potential negatives? i can't say (won't say). if we're looking at absolute cleanliness, obviously solar.

she's, perfect

[coolmilo]

Personally I am waiting for the Flux capacitor technology that was introduced in Back to the Future. I want to power my car with a banana peel.

Until then we need to look to our friends in France as the model for delivering efficient power (which is nuclear of course). According to the experts, this is the most efficient and clean method for power. The only issue is the safety factor.