NEW ENERGY

[Bravo No.8007420]

Lets talk about new power options. Get in here if you know about it.

Why dont we take light and separate it into a bunch of sets of small wave lengths, and have a sensor that reacts to this narrow range of energy and converts it into DC.

[Bravo No.8007423]

any one know if different angles of prisms separate white light into smaller wave lengths. Maybe even prism a prism to define it more?

[Bravo No.8007425]

think of a transparent layer where different wave lengths pass through until it gets to the proper sensor that reacts.

[Bravo No.8007427]

get in here. its the future

[Anonymous No.8007481]

There are solar cells that do this.

[Anonymous No.8007538]

>>8007420
We already have multi layer solar cells that react to different wavelengths. For example one reacts better to red, other better to blue, cascade them and you push the efficiency to 50% from 30%.

Anyway renewable is gay as fuck just use multistage uranium or go to thorium salt.

[Anonymous No.8007585]

We already have infinite energy systems but the oil companies shut them down / buy them out before anyone hears about them

[Anonymous No.8007595]

Let's pump magma instead of that filthy fossil goo.

[Anonymous No.8007600]

Whatever happened to LFTR and other alternate nuclear technologies? I don't see any mention of them in the media any more.

[Anonymous No.8007604]

>>8007538
>Anyway renewable is gay as fuck just use multistage uranium or go to thorium salt.
This. We have the technology to power the world for virutually infinite amount of time already.

[Anonymous No.8007612]

>>8007585
>We already have infinite energy systems but the oil companies shut them down / buy them out before anyone hears about them
Hey /x/, if I was a big oil company that learned I could start selling energy in the form of, let's say..., pomegranates.
Why wouldn't I just start buying and selling pomegranates instead of quashing the tech and hoping a startup doesn't beat me to the pomegranate punch?

[Anonymous No.8007631]

>>8007612
sunk costs
helping out your buddies
politics

[Anonymous No.8007658]

>>8007538
>>8007600
That isn't renewable, why are you even posting ITT?

[Anonymous No.8007664]

>>8007612
Oil companies are in the oil business, and business is just fine, so they are not about to allow you to endanger their business with your pomegranates.

[Anonymous No.8007676]

>>8007631
>>8007664
Ok, so why isn't a a startup going the pomegranate route?
Face it, paranoia and skepticism don't make you better than everybody else.

[Turboautist !!hnM4UGUGKLO No.8007716]

>>8007420
That's called a spectrum splitting solar cell.

>>8007600
There aren't that many advantages of LFTR over conventional uranium based nuclear power. Molten salts have some interesting advantages though.


>>8007658
Who gives a fuck? We need as much non-carbon electricity as possible. We cannot exclude nukes.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8007854]

>>8007600
They were rarely mentioned to begin with.

The best thing thing in that space IMHO is ThorCon. They had some press releases last year.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8007855]

>>8007658
It's sustainable in any practical sense. The sun will go out before we run out of uranium and thorium.

>>8007716
>There aren't that many advantages of LFTR over conventional uranium based nuclear power. Molten salts have some interesting advantages though.
Except no high pressures, which means safer and cheaper. And the cesium, iodine, and strontium stay in solution during an accident IIRC, rather than going into the air, which means safer, and therefore cheaper again.

[Turboautist !!hnM4UGUGKLO No.8007913]

>>8007600
According to this, there are ongoing molten salt reactor research programs in various countries:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx


>>8007855
Those are advantages of molten salts, not exclusively LFTRs

[Anonymous No.8007917]

Nuclear should be the base of all power grids.

Geo, Hydro, Solar, Wind should used when and where appropriate to fill in the gaps.

Now who wants to go mine Helium 3 on the Moon?

[Anonymous No.8008036]

>>8007917
>Nuclear should be the base of all power grids.
Other systems would also work, and nuclear requires pretty strong regulation and accountability to be safe.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust the Australian government with a bunch of nuclear reactors.

[Anonymous No.8008148]

>>8007658
The OP never said the word "Renewable".

[Anonymous No.8008156]

>>8008036
Australian Absolute Monarchy when?

[Anonymous No.8008238]

>>8007917
This is probably the best strategy long term energy production, but we also need to manage our consumption better.

LED bulbs make a lot of sense for new construction. They're crazy efficient, safe, and durable. CFLs on the other hand are fairly efficient, but they're still made of glass, so they're fairly fragile, and the tube is full of mercury. Breaking one of those is actually pretty toxic.

It might be better to use CFLs if you're retrofitting an existing building though. I don't particularly like CFLs, but the increase in efficiency over incandescent bulbs is huge compared to the relatively small cost of CFLs. LEDs are quite a bit more expensive than CFLs for now, and the marginal increase in efficiency is noticeable, but not nearly as significant as the jump from incandescents to CFLs.

That's just advances in lighting. I'm sure there are lots of other energy-smart devices, appliances, cars, whatever on the horizon.

[Anonymous No.8008292]

>>8008036
>and nuclear requires pretty strong regulation and accountability to be safe.
Not even close
The point of this "muh regulation" shit is making it impossible to build new reactors
Blatant conspiring with all non-nuclear energy sources

[Anonymous No.8008305]

>>8008238
LED bulbs the modern ones are blue diodes with a phosphor layer.
Phosphor is used by Israelis to kill innocent Palestinian children

[Anonymous No.8008327]

>>8008292
>Not even close
So, how do explain accidents like Fukushima?
Because other than "nukes r bad", regulatory failure is by far the most common explanation. TEPCO bribed Japanese government officials in order to keep operating the reactors despite clear evidence that they were under-maintained and unsafe. Then, when an even occurred that the reactor was supposed to withstand, the safety measures failed like wet cardboard (or had already failed years ago).

I trust the Australian government and companies FAR less than I would trust their Japanese equivalents; This country is basically run on organised bribery. So there's no way in hell I'd want these people trying to maintain a nuclear reactor.

[Anonymous No.8008465]

>>8008327
Building nuke plants along tectonic slide zones is dangerous, they are better off drilling for magma. It's just a matter of time before we build cars that run on magma.

[Anonymous No.8008546]

>>8007420
Are you aware of the work of Dr. Gregor Czisch?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Czisch

http://www.zeit.de/2009/29/Beistueck-Erfinder

[Anonymous No.8008677]

>>8008327
Fukushima is older than Chernobyl.

Those older plants keep running because newer plants are being blocked.
New plants don't need a generator in the basement to keep cooling.

Nuclear plants are already a few generations ahead of Chernobyl/Fukushima and are 100-1000 times as safe.

[Anonymous No.8008714]

>>8007913
Thank you,
finally someone who knows the difference between reactor configurations and fuel types!

Was getting really worried I was the only one.

[Anonymous No.8008719]

>>8007420
I give you the future!

[Anonymous No.8008926]

>>8008327
Not to mention that the Tohoku earthquake was the most powerful earthquake to hit Japan, a country known for its tectonic instability, and the fourth strongest ever recorded - and it wasn't even the earthquake itself but the following tsunami that destroyed the diesel generators that powered the coolant loops (normally powered by the reactors themselves, which had already had control rods inserted and as such were not producing power) - the tsunami being 13m high when it reached the plant's 10m high sea wall.

Fukushima was a fluke that couldn't happen anywhere not suffering an unprecedentedly large tidal wave, caused by the strongest earthquake to ever hit the region.
>in response, Germany shuts down all its nuclear power plants
jdimsa

[Anonymous No.8008982]

>>8008926
Yep.

Clearly if a poorly run facility can fail after 40 years from a threat 300 times larger then its was build to withstand and well over a 1000 times more powerful then anyone predicted, then it proves nuclear power is unsafe.

>The cars on the road can not completely insure the drivers safety from anti-tank rounds or head on hyper-sonic head on collisions, so they all need to be recalled till this issue is fixed, as they clearly don't work as a means of transportation.

[Anonymous No.8008993]

>>8007612
Tag your pomegranates you shitlord

[Anonymous No.8009007]

>>8008982
Other reactors that were being properly maintained and operated survived fine, despite some of them being even closer to the center of the mess.
My point wasn't "nuclear power is unsafe", it was "nuclear power isn't magically safe".

[Anonymous No.8009028]

>>8009007
guess I should have used more green text in my sarcastic reply, I was agreeing with you

[Anonymous No.8009070]

>>8007420
>Why dont we take light and separate it into a bunch of sets of small wave lengths, and have a sensor that reacts to this narrow range of energy and converts it into DC.

"Optic nantenna" is the term you're looking for.

Simply because they're too hard to manufacture.

[Anonymous No.8009203]

>>8008926
p.s. there were zero recorded fatalities from the Fukushima nuclear plant. All the actual deaths associated with the event resulted directly from the Tsunami.

Nuclear is phenomenally safe.

[Anonymous No.8009221]

>>8008926
Pretty much this. The environmentalists and media have managed to team up to force nuclear energy to adhere to a safety standard magnitudes more strict that other industry sectors.

[Anonymous No.8009304]

>>8007855
>It's sustainable in any practical sense. The sun will go out before we run out of uranium and thorium.
Are we unable to consume all that Uranium/Thorium?

[Anonymous No.8009320]

>>8007664
>oil business is just fine
Not from what I've heard.

[Anonymous No.8009322]

What happens if you let go of a helium balloon? Where does it end up?

[Anonymous No.8009402]

>>8007420
>get an eolic energy mill
>put a shitton of fans on it's front

[Anonymous No.8009403]

Biological Photo-Voltaics :)

[Anonymous No.8010968]

>>8009304
We can totally use all the Uranium/Thorium fuel type up on earth relatively quickly (few hundred years if we just use it like we want). But that assumes we use more typical nuclear reactor setups.

However, there are special types of reactors called breeders, which as a byproduct turn regular Uranium/Thorium (and other things like plutonium) into the fuel type of Uranium/Thorium. This would increase the usable fuel amount by orders of magnitude and could arguably out last our sun by a little bit if managed correctly. But these are more expensive as very few have been built, and they easily can make huge amounts of high grade fuel (aka "weapons grade"), which is great for powering cities or blowing them up.

With these we could turn our nuclear weapons into massively huge energy reserves. Or turn out new energy reserves from low grade materials into even more weapons.

>I assume the government needs them for aliens, as we can blow up the surface of the planet several times over already.