/sci/ - Science & Math

Wind is not enough. You'll need all the power you can get to survive the end of cheap oil.

As for "greedy capitalist", just what are you referring to? People like luxury, and they like getting it cheap. As peak oil hits, the easy days are going away in energy production, and we'll have to use long-lasting or renewable sources, like nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

But oil is *so much* of our current energy budget. We are going to need a LOT of ALL the alternatives.

I imagined giant dish shaped objects that could be placed in circular formation at a higher elevation. The curvature shape of the dish form would help reflect rays in on itself helping generate more power. A higher elevation to allow more light and... again they could be placed in tight circular formation almost as if they were flowers.

Markets are probably going to be very much involved in making the transition. As oil prices rise the high prices of alternatives will become more and more worthwhile.

I had a lecture on a guy that works in a firm that calculates "worst case scenarios".

Even with the most optimistic estimates, our oil dependence is only going to grow. Why? Because the need for energy is growing more than the growth of the renewable energy sector. you can "blame" India and China's predicted economic growth on that.

Nukular is somewhat a viable alternative, but you need so much time to build one of those that they are a little less practical.

sage for troll

>>3576543
>Fuck this greedy capitalist world.

Because people wouldn't make money from wind farms, right?

>He thinks wind alone can generate even 10% of the world's energy needs
>laughingscientists.jpg

>>3576543
>>3576543
>Fuck this greedy capitalist world.

We nuclear power now, it is the most efficient.

Deal with it.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
>:3

Solar thermal power up in this bitch!

>turn off nuclear power?!
its imposable!

>>3576619
I prefer these. Mad wattage up these bitches.

dish solar all up in this bitch!

But, what's the hold up with sterling energy systems? We were supposed to have a big plant by now.

>>3576543

>thinks building, installing, maintaining and distributing wind power would be free.

Enjoy killing all those birds.
Nuclear power is far more efficient and safe as far as actual risks are concerned. It's also more portable and general purpose.

Nuclear - yay!
Solar - yay!
Wind - yay!
Coal - boo!
Oil - boo!
Gas - boo!

>>3576969
But solar beats nuclear hands down.
If you don't agree, you don't know enough.

P.S. fusion would dominate both of those, where the fuck is it guys? get to work

why the fuck would you want to shut down nuclear power plants?
I understand it with coat, but nuclear? really?

>>3576543
because when you collect that much energy from the atmosphere, you create huge climate change problems.

Solar, bitches.

No one's said anything about fusion...?
lolol

>>3577033
In the future, yes.
Fusion will be good, but it's not yet there.
Solar could be amazing, especially if you would capture it from outside of Earth (or even build a dyson sphere, yumm...). Current solar power is far too wasted on resources and efficiency is still somewhat low.
Fusion has great potential and solar also has immense potential. Neither is more efficient than nuclear WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. In the future they have the potential to be better than nuclear.

This means nuclear should be kept around until fusion is practical and efficient or until solar is more efficient. Solar could be made as a much better source if there were some major initiatives to get it from outside the atmosphere.

I know a person like you. I don't like him.
Everything he says contains "capitalism" and "greedy".

>>3576934
solar fucking sucks. It sucks so fucking hard for so many reasons. Youd need enough solar panels to cover the state of texas to match americas energy needs if you wanted to go all solar.

Not to mention the productions of the panels is expensive and causes pollution. It fucking sucks.

This is what is going to solve any energy crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU

fuck your faggot wind, solar, wave bullshit power. Nuclear, and nuclear only.

>>3577063
Nuh-uh. I don't think we should rely on reaching fusion one day. Even if we did, it's highly doubtful it would solve our oil problems. It would help us with making electricity but we never had actually problem with that.
Also solar energy sucks. I hate solar energy. Costs mad cash and yet still makes only around enough energy to heat up a bigger doghouse.

wind is one of the worst possible sources of power. it takes too much energy and resources to run, and the effect on the environment is atrocious.

not that, say, nuclear energy gets a free fucking pass, but the waste/damage/dangers of nuclear energy are pretty fucking cash compared to the energy output.

the thing is there's no way to generate the scale of energy we need without producing waste/endangering ourselves and the environment. nuclear energy is by far the most efficient. our options are essentially picking the most efficient source of power or living without electricity altogether. I don't even give a fuck which way we go, but good luck convincing people to live with out electricity.

no seriously, good fucking luck, it'd be interesting to see you succeed in that.

>>3577091
who said anything about solar panels? I'm talking steam.

>>3577098
>it's highly doubtful
Okay, bud.

I just wish the US had an energy policy. The Department of Energy should just be renamed the Department of Nuclear Weapons.

>Wind is not enough

I hear this phrase far too often and It's simply not true. Wind is very well enough, you just have to lower your standards.
That is, start using a laptop instead of a stationary computer, shut it down when it's not in necessary use etc. And if your still short on electricity you can as well get solar panels.

Dear original poster,
nuclear energy doesn't have a single flaw. Well yes, it does, but do you know what? Fuck you.
Neutrons ftw.

>>3577097

(samefagging)

of course, there is also the (fairly reasonable) chance that we could find a new, more efficient source of energy, but we can't tell the fucking future so that's up in the fucking air.

but short of finding a perpetual energy source (nope.jpg) any energy source we find will still produce some kind of waste or hurt us and our environment.

>>3577125
Are you an idiot? And what about crazy power prices and thousands of people that can't afford electricity?

>>3577091
>2011
>confusing "renewable solar energy" with "solar panels"
>my face (it's expressionless, no pic)

"But solar beats nuclear hands down."

I don't know what magical fantasy land you live in, but in my world, we use math. Solar is <25% efficient, has a maximum power/land density of 3.5W/m^2, a fatality rate of 0.44 deaths per TWh, and a demonstrated cost/power ratio in the ~$10-20/W. Nuclear gets 1000W/m^2 (with the exclusion zone included) and 0.04 deaths/TWh at a cost of ~$3-8/W.

Then there's Coal. ~400W/m^2, 15 deaths/TWh, and ~$2/W.

Solar = fuzzy, but not terribly useful. Nuclear = not terrible, occasionally scary, but immensely useful. Coal = fucking evil.

>>3577117
I give you that we might actually reach fusion in a decade or two. Maybe even sooner. But before we figure out how to make matter fuse in a space small enough so we could fit it in a car or any vehicle, I think we'll be out of oil by then.

That's my opinion. I respect whatever your opinion is. This is mine.

I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but solar seems to have the greatest long term potential, espeically of organic assembly (using viruses) pans out.

>>3577148
>out of oil


We have plenty of oil under places like yellowstone. The oil company's just can't take it because it I a protected park.

>>3577161

given technology we have currently available, nuclear energy is fucking godmode. but as far as hypothetical energy sources, some as-yet-discovered form of solar energy would be godmode.

Long term solar and wind would be best, but they both need to be developed to a much higher efficiency before we should start using them as a main source of energy.

>>3577166
If we ever reach the point of having to get oil from below Yellowstone, the oil will cost three time as much as it does now.

>>3577175
Like panels that absorb a larger spectrum of light

You people fail to realize that to make these wind farm people have to subsidize them. That drives power prices up people can barely afford to pay the bills each month now.

>>3577183
Yeah but we will never run out. And if it does get to that point the tree huggers won't stand in the way of the government.

>Doesn't understand anything about economics

This is why we can't have nice things OP

If troll, 6/10

ok heres my idea

GIANT FANS THE BLADES OF WHICH ARE SOLAR PANELS

>>3577199
Areyouascientist.PNG

LFTR!
But honestly, I'll take anything. The main problem I have with capitalism is that it only favors progress if progress favors profit. But what'cha'gonna'do? Everything else sucks. I guess we just have to wait until I become god emperor of mankind and lead a scientific revolution.

Funny, there was actually an economic theory a while back that espoused that efficiency/productivity gains due to technology could outpace the cyclic nature of the market leading to no more depressions/recessions. Then fucking 9/11 happened and it got shit canned.

>>3577197
>oil
>never run out
Sure thing, bro.

>>3577197
Yes, but economy will be wrecked by then. And I'm not sure how willing will governments be about putting valuable money into science.
Or I don't know. I don't like economy.

Either way, we've got to be pretty fast if we don't want to die.

>>3577147
>Solar is <25% efficient
>doesn't state any efficiency for nuclear
>doesn't mention where this 25% came from and apparently has no concept of Carnot efficiency

Huh. Okay well, what I like about solar is that it doesn't require mining for radioactive material in the first place, so theoretically anybody on the planet has access to it.

Also, if nuclear is so much safer, why is it the one subject to a multitude of international guidelines and restrictions? In contrast, building a micro solar-thermal system requires exactly zero permits.

>>3577216
Not for a long fucking time. But you won't be able to afford it.

WHY WIND POWER DOES NOT WORK:

Primary physical problem - The max kinetic energy conversion of a wind turbine is 59%. If you took all the kinetic energy out of the wind it would stop moving. The air behind the turbine would be motionless and no more wind could blow.

Design trade offs - Can't get max possible efficiency because a design that would allow for that would be unstable. The blades would break right off. Furthermore they must be feathered to prevent turbine from spinning too fast under any condition regardless of design type so there'll be no taking advantage of strong winds

Design point - There's always a point of max efficiency for any design (for wind speed), all other points are therefore necessarily less efficient. There's therefore only one wind speed at which the machine is maximally efficient.

It's rare that you'd get winds to all the areas that need it at the same time on any given day and when night falls and the power is needed the most the wind dies down

You won't get 100% conversion efficiency from mechanical to electrical via the generator. To be fair this effects every such power generating device but still it adds up

When there's no wind, energy must be provided TO the turbines to keep them spinning. The blades are so heavy that if they stop spinning they'll actually bow under their own weight and the turbine will be ruined.

Energy will constantly be required for a powerful lubrication pumping system for the turbine. This is unavoidable.

People need to stop being ignorant and cowardly and embrace Thorium nuclear power. Thorium is extremely safe and if that's still not good enough for you then realize that risk is a part of life and you need to accept it.

>>3577216
I liked the a-biogenesis hypothesis as well. Too bad it wasn't true. Wrong scientific theories are so cool.

>>3577224
>>doesn't state any efficiency for nuclear
The 3 year moving average for US capacity factor (how much time the reactor is at 100%) is >90%.

There are a shit load of Wind Farms in California and we only get less than 8% of our power from it.

Think for a second, there are only 104 nuclear power plants and they supply more than 25% of our power. Honestly, why are we not INVESTING in this?

>>3577237
Heat engines have a 10-20% conversion efficiency. Solar has around a 30%. Light water reactors and heavy water reactors have a ~0.5% and ~0.7% conversion efficiency respectively. Is 59% so bad?

>>3577237
>The blades would break right off.

They could try switching to these.

>>3577237

>When there's no wind, energy must be provided TO the turbines to keep them spinning. The blades are so heavy that if they stop spinning they'll actually bow under their own weight and the turbine will be ruined.

absolutely incorrect turbines in my area don't spin for days at a time if the wind isn't strong enough

>>3577237
You sound like you're acting there's only the windmill design.

Thorium!!

>>3577349
Nigga I mine thorium veins all day err day.

Because you faggot. Why are you using a computer if, by the beliefs of your pseudo-religion that is in fact killing the planet by using electricity?

>>3577349
indeed. write your congressbeast to restart the thorium research abandoned in the 1960s. And to save the U-233 stockpile (used to kickstart the first LFTRs).

>>3577256

59% isn't terrible but you have to understand. Solar is 30% because the technology isn't good enough to do any better. Wind is 59% because it's physically impossible to ever get any higher.

Like I said, if you remove all the kinetic energy from wind it stops moving, by necessity. If it were still moving, it wouldn't have lost all its kinetic energy. If it stops moving no more wind can pass by the turbine.

>peak oil

Problem? Wind and solar?

http://www.fastcompany.com/1660316/bill-gates-backed-nuclear-power-startup-gets-35-million

Thermal boreholes yield +6 energy. Why not we building them in combination with solar arrays and echelon mirrors?

>>3577605
oh yeah, I forgot about geothermal

WHAT NOW, NUCLEARFAGS?

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors should be shouted from the rooftops.

Not enough magnets and rare earth metals. There is enough rare earth metals to make FC Hydrogen cars, Hybrids, etc ......barely.

But you want to replace all forms of energy with wind motors and solar panels? Not doable until we find another terrestrial planet to colonize and mine.

On the other hand we have enough thorium to build bridges out of them... or LFTR...

We could stick a giant solar panel in the sahara and power the world. True stroy.

>>3577224
There is an actual theoretical limit (could be due to the materials used, I've got no idea what it's based on, I just was told of it in class) of about 40% efficiency for solar cells, and that's with the hardcore multi-wavelength ones that they only put on satellites.

In any case:
>2011
>not building a dyson sphere yet

>>3577636

But aren't solar panels made out of silicon? Si is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

>>3577644

I'm assuming troll but you realize a desert is still an ecosystem, right? Every ecosystem does, you can't just cover up massive swaths of it.

>>3577678

every ecosystem needs the sun******

>>3577678
who gives a shit about it, though? Desertification is running rampant, if taking a load of heat generation can prevent that, cool!

>>3576543
>Why can't we wah wah wah
Why don't you turn off all your lights and your computer you dumb fuck?

>>3577605
>>3577367

I am currently studying for a M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering.

I am specializing in Energy and the Environment, and my research is focused specifically on wind turbines.

I think OP, that your idea is fucking retarded. It may, in the near future, be possible to eliminate the need for coal power plants. But that would require vast diversification of energy generation, through nuclear, wind, large hydro, small hydro, ocean hydro, solar thermal, geo thermal, and others where appropriate. And mind you, a large-hydro installation can have just as much effective emissions as a coal-fired plant.