Thoughts on so called 'renewable' energy?
Forums › General Discussion › Thoughts on so called 'renewable' energy?-
Let's discuss windfarms and solar panels and dams.
What are your biases and opinions?
-
Our hydro electric power cuts off our salmon runs here in Idaho
-
Add SQUARE wrote:
Ouch. I like dams and tidal power, but china is going over the top, damming international rivers.Our hydro electric power cuts off our salmon runs here in Idaho
-
If they made solar panels alot more efficient ( mean spacewise) itd be better
-
It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
-
🙎🔥DEV@STATOR🔥🙎 wrote:
Yes but it is incredibly inefficient to get them up there, and on land they only utilise 5% of the energy they receive.If they made solar panels alot more efficient ( mean spacewise) itd be better
Plus they use indium tin oxide, we only have ten years left and need it for touch screens.
I fully support solar towers though. They use mirrors to heat water in a tower, thus turning turbines.
-
nateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I agree I like nuclear also, but a lot of people have a lot of problems with it, plus what would you do with the waste? And I think when we get fusion to work well it'll be great to use.nateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I don't think he meant IN space, but as in the space it takes up. Size.🙎🔥DEV@STATOR🔥🙎 wrote:
Yes but it is incredibly inefficient to get them up there, and on land they only utilise 5% of the energy they receive.If they made solar panels alot more efficient ( mean spacewise) itd be better
Plus they use indium tin oxide, we only have ten years left and need it for touch screens.
I fully support solar towers though. They use mirrors to heat water in a tower, thus turning turbines.
And we couldn't really get the energy from a satellite to Earth, now could we? 😉
-
SeñoritaMafioso wrote:
You can...₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I don't think he meant IN space, but as in the space it takes up. Size.🙎🔥DEV@STATOR🔥🙎 wrote:
Yes but it is incredibly inefficient to get them up there, and on land they only utilise 5% of the energy they receive.If they made solar panels alot more efficient ( mean spacewise) itd be better
Plus they use indium tin oxide, we only have ten years left and need it for touch screens.
I fully support solar towers though. They use mirrors to heat water in a tower, thus turning turbines.
And we couldn't really get the energy from a satellite to Earth, now could we? 😉
-
🔰Superyan🔰 wrote:
Gah, I worded that wrong...that's not what I meant...just ignore me... 😣😓😔SeñoritaMafioso wrote:
You can...₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I don't think he meant IN space, but as in the space it takes up. Size.🙎🔥DEV@STATOR🔥🙎 wrote:
Yes but it is incredibly inefficient to get them up there, and on land they only utilise 5% of the energy they receive.If they made solar panels alot more efficient ( mean spacewise) itd be better
Plus they use indium tin oxide, we only have ten years left and need it for touch screens.
I fully support solar towers though. They use mirrors to heat water in a tower, thus turning turbines.
And we couldn't really get the energy from a satellite to Earth, now could we? 😉
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
Nuclear power is the way to go on a large scale.nateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
-
Ca n'existe pas.
-
I build rotors for steam, nuclear, and gas power. So I'm biased
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
The only problem is all the things that can go wrong with nuclear powered reactornateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
-
There actually very safe. In Europe they use more than 2/3's of the nuclear waste for other things so they have very little of the waste left to have to contain in the US we don't use any of it that's why we have so much of it to store/contain.
-
nateweger wrote:
Fusion, that is a hard one. First off, the physics is so complex and they keep running into problem with the designs for fusion. Also, getting the breaking point is another issue. Getting it to where you receive more energy than you put in is hard to do. So, fusion might not happen for hundreds of years at least. Could be thousands for all I know or even more. Plus, even though we have advanced technology, we only got to this point through several events causing a technology boom such as World War ll and the Cold War. Technology might not increase at such a steady rate over time so it could be longer to attain fusion technology and also above the breaking point.₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
✂nateweger wrote:
✂✂
-
Solar panels are the way to go especially on a grid tie system, they aren't the greatest right now but theyre getting better, increasing wattage per panel without increasing size is a great start, and grid ties are great because u can eliminate a large battery bank and run the power direct to the house
-
I will say tho that panels do have flaws, here on the big island in Hawaii it doesn't work where there's vog from the volcano, well it does, it just works at a lesser capacity, but I still think its a good resource
-
UnknownAssassin wrote:
That's all true, but I still think if they could get fusion to work then it would be great! *fingers crossed*nateweger wrote:
✂₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
✂nateweger wrote:
✂✂
-
nateweger wrote:
It is a dream but then the world events such as major war, natural disasters, international and national politics, etc. are also obstacles for such a thing. If the world is in a major war, we can't use international resources such as technology from one university, an expert from one country coming to another and help design such parts for the development of the fusion device or a part that will help forward the device's chance of existence, etc. Natural disasters take time away, international politics causes unneeded attention at times and can cause unwanted debates and such that could lengthen the wait for needed people and resources.UnknownAssassin wrote:
✂nateweger wrote:
✂✂ wrote:
✂nateweger wrote:
✂✂
-
Natural gas people. That's the answer. Pass the beans.
-
Nuclear "waste" is a non-issue I think.
Uranium is one of the most abundant minerals in the Earth. It's presence not only threw off estimates of the age of the Earth by billions of years, (because early scientists were not aware of how much of our core temperature is sustained through natural fission), but through the analysis of the lead to uranium ratio we finally arrived at the current accepted age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years.
Knowing that Uranium in the Earth began to decay 4.5 billion years ago, and STILL exists in abundance...
What harm is created by mining it, depleting it at an accelerated rate, and placing it back where we found it?
We did not "create" this material, nor did we modify it.
We only need to throw it into a subduction zone and the "problem" is gone.
What prevents this? Stupid people, I think.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Subduction zones are the way to go! Suck that shit to the earths core, ultimate recycling.Nuclear "waste" is a non-issue I think.
Uranium is one of the most abundant minerals in the Earth. It's presence not only threw off estimates of the age of the Earth by billions of years, (because early scientists were not aware of how much of our core temperature is sustained through natural fission), but through the analysis of the lead to uranium ratio we finally arrived at the current accepted age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years.
Knowing that Uranium in the Earth began to decay 4.5 billion years ago, and STILL exists in abundance...
What harm is created by mining it, depleting snip it?
We did not "create" this material, nor did we modify it.
We only need to throw it into a subduction zone and the "problem" is gone.
What prevents this? Stupid people, I think.
Law of the sea prevents it
-
N3RO wrote:
N3ro, the Big Island could run on entirely renewable energy if the politicians weren't so foolish. The island sets on one of the biggest geothermal sources in the world, the wind blows all the time, and the sun shines everyday in Kohala. I wish I was King. I'd revitalize the sugar industry, make you drive on alcohol. 😋I will say tho that panels do have flaws, here on the big island in Hawaii it doesn't work where there's vog from the volcano, well it does, it just works at a lesser capacity, but I still think its a good resource
-
nateweger wrote:
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I agree I like nuclear also, but a lot of people have a lot of problems with it, plus what would you do with the waste? And I think when we get fusion to work well it'll be great to use.nateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
Nuclear is not renewable though
-
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote: Subduction zones are the way to go! Suck that shit to the earths core, ultimate recycling.
More like the law of California.Law of the sea prevents it
See what I mean by stupid people? Building cities on unstable rifts in the Earth's crust, and then bitching about where to put nuclear "waste".
I quote the great Carl Pilkington: What's the point of having a volcano at all if you aren't allowed to throw stuff in it?
"I know! Let's just rebuild San Francisco! It's not like another big quake will ever hit!"
Where's Gene Hackman when you need him? I mean, yes... Hackensack was a waste, but look at the planned improvements to the left coast!
-
the destroyer 3 wrote:
It is sustainable for millenia.nateweger wrote:
₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote:
I agree I like nuclear also, but a lot of people have a lot of problems with it, plus what would you do with the waste? And I think when we get fusion to work well it'll be great to use.nateweger wrote:
We don't though, it just doesn't work on a major scale, to power a very small village or the like then fine, but if every major town and city had a small nuclear fission reactor we would all be fine!It's the future, and we need a lot more of it, but it's very inefficient at the moment.
Nuclear is not renewable though
That is just fine for us.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
There are always idiots that are fooled by pop culture₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote: Subduction zones are the way to go! Suck that shit to the earths core, ultimate recycling.
More like the law of California.Law of the sea prevents it
See what I mean by stupid people? Building cities on unstable rifts in the Earth's crust, and then bitching about where to put nuclear "waste".
I quote the great Carl Pilkington: What's the point of having a volcano at all if you aren't allowed to throw stuff in it?
"I know! Let's just rebuild San Francisco! It's not like another big quake will ever hit!"
Where's Gene Hackman when you need him? I mean, yes... Hackensack was a waste, but look at the planned improvements to the left coast!
-
the destroyer 3 wrote:
Nuclear is. Fission isn't. But then... The sun isn't renewable either, and it is responsible for solar, wind, hydro-electric, AND bio-fuels. Even fusion requires consumption of natural resources...Nuclear is not renewable though
Oil is a bio-fuel. It just takes a long time to renew it.
Wait.. Renewable energy is just bullshit!
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
😂😂₲ɛƞɛяɑƖ ₳łɑƌɛɛƞ wrote: Subduction zones are the way to go! Suck that shit to the earths core, ultimate recycling.
More like the law of California.Law of the sea prevents it
See what I mean by stupid people? Building cities on unstable rifts in the Earth's crust, and then bitching about where to put nuclear "waste".
I quote the great Carl Pilkington: What's the point of having a volcano at all if you aren't allowed to throw stuff in it?
"I know! Let's just rebuild San Francisco! It's not like another big quake will ever hit!"
Where's Gene Hackman when you need him? I mean, yes... Hackensack was a waste, but look at the planned improvements to the left coast!
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC