/sci/ - Science & Math

Checkmate :)

>enzymes being cheap
you may as well just raise sugar cane in a hothouse and make ethanol

Solar can't be used everywhere all of the time. Enough said.

>>5637000
>everywhere
luckily electricity is easy to distribute
>all of the time
but difficult to store

>>5637004
It isn't easy to distribute over long distances. Unless you've designed an inexpensive ultra high voltage transmission line.

Why don't we just burn plants that already convert the sun's energy into chemical energy?

>>5637009
In Brazil there's a 2500km HVDC line

>>5637009
http://www.claverton-energy.com/ttechnical-feasibility-of-complex-multi-terminal-hvdc-and-ideological-barriers-to-inter-country-exchanges.html

>>5637012
We do.

>>5636981

Doesn't say how much of an increase in efficiency, just concentrating it more doesn't mean all that much.

Also
> 2012+1; not growing photsynthetic algae.

>>5637012
You have to use lands to grow biofuels, usually land that could be used to grow food. Food is more important than fuel.

Won't work in the northern UK, I can tell you that.

Solar is useful because it is simpler to maintain once the panels develop. That's the only advantage it has over gen IV reactor designs.

>>5637553
Can't algae be grown in plastic bags in the desert without an open water source?

neat
let me know when it can equal the power per unit area of nuclear power plants. it probably never will. in fact i don't think the sun's rays (with no efficiency loss) can match it

it'd be great on your roof though, good for small scale, terribad for baseload

>>5638066
>let me know when it can equal the power per unit area of nuclear power plants
God, you are the most useless namefag.

First you idiotically get everybody all fired up with totally inaccurate claims about thorium reactors, and now you go around making totally senseless arguments in favor of nuclear power in general.

Solar power is never going to have to beat nuclear power on power per unit area to be preferred, for any application, ever. This is basically the dumbest way ever to argue for nuclear over solar.

>>5638114
How about nuclear power is just straight better? Let's leave it at that.

>>5638114
How's the Aspergers treating ya?

>>5638131
>nuclear
>expensive with no prospects for dramatic cost reductions
>only economically viable when heavily subsidized
>only feasible for large-scale centralized power
>constant potential for major disasters
>presents an extinction-level threat to the human race through nuclear weapons proliferation
>"just better"

can't wait for thorium!

>>5638150
>bullshit
>bullshit
>bullshit
>bullshit
>bullshit
You're living under a rock?

Still doesn't solve the baseload problem.

The thing about solar, battery, and fuel electrosynthesis technologies is that they all have room for orders of magnitude improvements where it counts, they all can be developed and deployed privately without any particular government involvement, none presents any threat of large-scale disaster, and they're all starting to take off into rapid advancement the way computer technology did.

Face it: solar + storage is the future of terrestrial power. First it's going to get cheap enough that we can do it, then it's going to get cheap enough that nothing else makes the slightest bit of sense by comparison.

There have been some recent advances in PV technology utilizing graphene. Lots of money is being dumped into graphene research right now so expect there to be many more advancements. Some day soon....PV will rival nuclear, coal, oil, hydo, and all other possible energy sources.

>>5638193
I too like to balance burnt marshmallows on flowers.

and regarding your text. You know whats up.
Praise graphene!

I thought this was old news. I heard about it years ago. I'm sure internet will pull up more results and diagrams too. It was supposed to be one of the new exciting uses for carbon nanotubes.

>>5637553
It has a much more fundamental problem than that. Growing crops for biofuel uses up more energy than it outputs (in the nutrient use, machinery use, etc..). The only reason it's even feasible at all is because the west likes to subsidize farming in order to out-compete other countries in food import/export costs. So, because it's subsidized, a bunch of farmers produce waaaaay more than they could ever sell (there's not enough demand for them to produce that much in a proper economy) so then either the government has to buy the surplus or they have to find uses for it. Any way you look at it, it's just salvaging byproducts from an inefficient economy.

>>5637559
but the UK is supposed to be dreary.

>>5638364
>Researchers at China's Zhejiang University created this "graphene sponge", which is lighter than helium (the second lightest element in the periodic table), through a complex method involving freeze drying. The science team reports that the process used for creating the "aerographene" can easily be scaled up to create large chunks of the material, measurable in cubic meters, as opposed to the current cubic centimeter scaled ones.
>lighter than helium

Does this mean we can put it in balloons to make them float? also do they plan to make a peanut butter flavored version?

>>5638114
wait, so, power per unit area is a useless measure of performance for a method of energy production?
i don't have a witty follow i'm just seriously wondering what led you to this conclusion

>>5638922
>wait, so, power per unit area is a useless measure of performance for a method of energy production?
Oh my god, what is wrong with your brain?

>i don't have a witty follow i'm just seriously wondering what led you to this conclusion
>this conclusion
>that I completely made up
Nobody said it's a useless measure. It's perfectly valid to compare the power per unit area of one solar technology to another solar technology, and nothing to the contrary was stated, implied, or even suggested.

But "power per unit area" is not a meaningful measure of nuclear power generation performance, or a useful or even SANE way to compare nuclear to solar.

>>5638186
>Still thinks solar+storage can sustain baseload for human population...
fullretard.jpg

>without subsidies
(pic related)

>>5638943
well, if you need a couple acres to generate a few gigawattsnuclear, and a couple thousand acres to generate a few gigawatts solar, what seems more sensible?
but yes it's only one metric, and not that important of a metric. i just find it amusing

Now all you have to do is convert the whole world off of oil to solar...
I-im sure t-the oil used in p-p-producing the p-panels will be a s-small price to p-pay?

>>5638943

>But "power per unit area" is not a meaningful measure of nuclear power generation performance, or a useful or even SANE way to compare nuclear to solar.

Of course it fucking is, you just find it inconvenient so you try to dismiss it. Try telling Japan to pave over half of its arable land to make way for solar panels that can provide the same energy of its nuclear and thermal plants that take up orders of magnitude less space.

Why do we have to have solar energetics while we can solve
this once and for all with nuclear fusion?

Lockheed&Martin announced already that they could sustain a stable fusion reaction,
so it like only a matter of time when we all get perfect endless power sources

>>5639271

>Lockheed&Martin announced already that they could sustain a stable fusion reaction

>>5638984

hidden costs
hidden costs
hidden costs

face it : without government subsidization, nuclear power never gets built.

>>5639314
http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years

> Ignoring fag cannot into google

>hidden costs

plus country-wide sacrifice zone when the coming comet cluster hits

>>5636981
>Well, well, well oil and nuclear power lovers
>oil and nuclear

Those are two extraordinarily different things. One of them is sustainable; the other is not.

Why are you hating on nuclear power? Why cannot nuclear and solar power live in peace?

>>5638150
>presents an extinction-level threat to the human race through nuclear weapons proliferation
Top lel

>>5639318
the costs of building the actual plant are well known
the costs of hiring lawyers to keep local nimbys from suing you into the ground and blockading the build site? not as determinate

The NRC could be blamed for a respectable proportion of those costs, because of their extremely tight regulation, but it's a curse and a blessing. nrc regulated NPPs are absolutely rock solid

>>5639954
they can, they just probably won't.
also fuck wind.
solar's alright

>>5639524
Why stop there? I dont see why wind, water, solar and nuclear can't be used harmoniously. Well, I do, but I dont like the reasons (jews).

>>5639318
Without government subsidization our food, oil, water, electricity, etc, systems of today wouldn't exist.

>>5639955
Wind and hydro are better that solar I think in terms of economic growth I think (basically giving people jobs). I may be completely wrong but I think they have higher maintenance costs that solar, which although I haven't added up the figures for that, I think is better for everyone overall.

Nuclear's obviously the best for this, but people for some reason still think nuclear energy = chernobyl