/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 61 KB, 530x499, solar_panels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:05:53 2011 No.3095517 [Reply] [Original]

THORIUMFAG STATUS:
NOT TOLD [ ]
TOLD [x]

From His Metamajesty, The Cyberlord Ray Kurzweil:

"If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world.

the Climate DeskToday, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly -- we are only a few years away from parity. And then it's going to keep coming down, and people will be gravitating towards solar, even if they don't care at all about the
environment, because of the economics.

So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/ray-kurzweill-climate-change

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:07:53 2011 No.3095527 what if i want to live on the dark side of the moon?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:09:53 2011 No.3095531 Fuck off Kurzweil. Not everything is exponential to infinity.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:12:53 2011 No.3095536 Taking comments out of context a bit, are we? OP status smart [ ] fukken retarded [X]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:13:53 2011 No.3095546 >And it didn't start two years ago as if that matters when it doubles every 2 years

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:14:53 2011 No.3095548 >>3095536 How is it out of context? From what context was it derived from that would have changed its meaning? The entire article is based around the idea in his quote. Sounds like another Thoriumfag just got insanely buttmad to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:14:53 2011 No.3095549 i get the feeling that the only function kurzweil knows is e^ax

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:15:53 2011 No.3095555

o wait actually solar panel efficiency hasn't grown by much at all. don't know what shit you're spouting off about.
Nuclear = low cost, high reward
solar = break even on investment

status:
told[ ]
not told[ ]
what the fuck are you even talking about [X]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:17:53 2011 No.3095563 >solar energy singularity >no

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:35:53 2011 No.3095620

>>3095549
>>3095555
>>3095563

moar buttmad who did not read the article.

Kurzweil logic = This energy source is not currently viable but if we analyse these trends etc etc
Nuclearfag logic = DUUURP ITS TOO EXPENSIVE BUT ITS THE BEST SOURCE BECAUSE I SAID SO

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:45:16 2011 No.3095662 [DELETED]

File: 201 KB, 1372x851, solar_cell_efficiency1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3095555
>o wait actually solar panel efficiency hasn't grown by much at all

Yeah, the best performing technology has only doubled in the last 10 years, thus completely proving Kurzweil correct, but feel free to maintain an unjustified skeptical outlook in order to appear intelligent.

Seriously, /sci/, you are fucking useless.

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:48:53 2011 No.3095680
File: 349 KB, 716x631, Red_detail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3095620
1. It's funny how you fling your baseless agression around and say others are 'buttmad'.
2. Going from "solar is very viable"(which was said) to "thorium isn't viable"(which wasn't said) is retarded.

It's not like there were only ONE TRUE car manufacturer in the world. Or just ONE TRUE type of transport.

Tone your hostility down a little. There's room for your solar panels in the future, right next to the nuclear power plants that we will make.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:53:53 2011 No.3095693 So what happens if the sun isn't shining OP? What happens when people want to use electricity at night? OP status: told [] fucking told [] JRR TOLD-KIEN [X]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 04:54:53 2011 No.3095694 This makes Solarfags sound like Fusionfags: "We'll have it in a few more years!" Sorry, as it stands, thorium reactors are still winning. Call me back when we have objective evidence that solar is (NOT WILL BE) superior.

>>	Nuka-Cola my trip is on my other comp Sat May 21 04:54:53 2011 No.3095697 Oh goody, thorium-fag is a word now, I feel vindicated. Also, solar panel efficiency hasn't been climbing like that. And given the Biblical levels of funding for it, I'm surprised.

Anonymous Sat May 21 04:58:53 2011 No.3095702

>>3095620
>DUUURP ITS TOO EXPENSIVE
O-FUCKING-RLY?

lets look at cost per MW:
1MW solar ~$4.5 million
1MW wind ~$4 million
1MW thorium ~$2.5 million going to as low as $0.25 million depending on the size of the plant (a 1000MW thorium plant would cost about $250 million)

you:
NOT TOLD [ ]
STILL TOLD [x]

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:01:53 2011 No.3095708

>>3095702
These numbers are most likely bullshit, since they probably don't take into account the public subsidies.

As far as Thorium reactors go, it's just a matter of money. The owners of the LW reactor patents sure would like their invention to go out of style ...

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:04:53 2011 No.3095716 >>3095708 >public subsidies the money still needs to come from somewhere, having a subsidy doesn't reduce the cost at all, it just shifts the cost around, but in the end you are still paying for all of it

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:06:53 2011 No.3095721 nuh-uh, my xbaux380 is way better than ur st00pid mac and ur gay NINTENDOFAG STATUS: [x] TOLD [x] MOMMY!

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:08:53 2011 No.3095725

>>3095716
er wat?
No, the amount of public subsidies skews the TCO horribly. Just take our usual beloved nuclear fission. In Germany, for example, ALL of the costs to safely store the nuclear fuel is pay ENTIRELY by the taxpayer. The companies who run and profit off the plants have to do shit.

Take that plus the billions which were given in form of tax relief and your numbers won't be as accurate anymore.

The solar subsidies are not worth mentioning if you compare them to nuclear subsidies.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:11:53 2011 No.3095734

>But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years."
Don't make me post that extrapolation xkcd page.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:15:53 2011 No.3095747 >>3095734 Well .. 20 years worth of data isn't nothing.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:18:53 2011 No.3095756

You know it really never occurred to me until recently but solar is goddamn ugly when somebody decides to plant a field of the damn things. I live in Colorado Springs and somebody had the brilliant idea to put a 30 acre patch of them at Academy and I-25 and its fugly as can be.

30 fucking ugly shiny acres where there used to be nice looking open land all to make 6MW of power and blow 18.3 million dollars.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sat May 21 05:19:53 2011 No.3095758 BASE LOAD POWER

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:22:53 2011 No.3095767 >>3095756 I just took a look at Col. Springs via Google Earth .. holy fuck, your solar panels should be the least of your problems. Half your city looks like suburbia on steroids.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:22:53 2011 No.3095768

>>3095756
Heres the Air Force article on it: http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123229131
>"It will cut our power from burning fossil fuels by 11 percent and, by the way, save us a half million dollars a year," said Lt. Gen. Mike Gould, the Academy superintendent.
>costs 18.3 million to make
>would take 36 years to pay for itself
>only planned to last 25 years

Great logic there.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:28:53 2011 No.3095779

>>3095756
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And if/as the technology matures, production costs go down and efficiency stops being the main and only consideration in the design process, certain artistry can be expected to creep into the installations.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:36:53 2011 No.3095798 >>3095756 Try looking at the mountain once in a while. You don't find NORADs antenna's equally as repulsive? Ever looked towards Carson on a cloudy night? The sky looks like something out of hell thanks to the miles and miles of orange lights.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:41:53 2011 No.3095808

>>3095798
They didn't put NORADs antennas right off I-25, I notice them but they don't bother me the same way. And I tend not to see much of Ft Carson at night cause I live up on the north east side of town.

It really has to do with the placement, its just ugly and in your face where they decided to put it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:44:53 2011 No.3095811 >>3095808 >its just ugly and in your face Welcome to the United States.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:45:53 2011 No.3095813 >>3095768 Fossil fuels will have run out in 25 years.

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:51:53 2011 No.3095824

trends aren't rules, they are just trends. there isn't a higher power governing adherence to these trends in such a way that their continuation is guarenteed.

also, i'm in the uk. solar is never going to be a major part of anything here, not unless you lay superconducting cables 1,000 miles all the way from spain or something.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:51:53 2011 No.3095825 File: 21 KB, 461x295, extrapolating 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i just feel compelled to post the following images

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 05:52:53 2011 No.3095828 File: 8 KB, 264x256, extrapolating 2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] also

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:57:53 2011 No.3095834
File: 147 KB, 800x568, solar efficiency.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

if you could btw be bother to actually check the facts, you would see that solar cell efficiency has only increased marginally over the last years,while it's cost increased by use of rare and depleting elements as well as multijunction cells ( basicly you stack three solar cells onto each other while each layer peaks efficiency in 1 domain of the EM spectrum)

the most promising route here is the development of cheap yet low efficiency cells, however claims like kurtzweil makes arent really grounded, this isn't moore law for the photovoltaic effect

Anonymous Sat May 21 05:58:53 2011 No.3095836

>>3095824
>also, i'm in the uk. solar is never going to be a major part of anything here,

You're an idiot. I'm running my laptop from a solar panel rig I got from Maplins right now, and it's totally overcast. Just because there isn't blazing sunshine it don't mean there's no solar power

Anonymous Sat May 21 06:04:53 2011 No.3095843

There has never been a solar panel developed yet that can output, over its entire lifetime, the power it took to manufacture it.

This is 100% true.

+ Solar power is massive in the space it requires as someone has mentioned above.

+ Before turdfaes says anything space-based solar isn't going to work either.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 06:05:53 2011 No.3095847 >>3095702 Yes, but solar power actually exists now. Any thorium plant would be at least a decade away from construction at the moment, even if there was the will to start building.

Anonymous Sat May 21 06:08:53 2011 No.3095854

>>3095620 Kurzweil logic = This energy source is not currently viable but if we analyse these trends etc etc

>hurp im an author and am not concerned about any of the actualy science behind it but moooores law is an actual physical law and not just a fucking coincidence

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 06:08:53 2011 No.3095856 >>3095847 http://flibe-energy.com/ They plan to have a working reactor built in less than 5 years.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 06:12:53 2011 No.3095861 >>3095856 That's nothing, Nuka-Cola plans to have one within the year

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 06:14:53 2011 No.3095866 >>3095861 And I would love to see that. Flibe Energy is the only other one I know whos really pushing for anything with a real timetable right now.

Anonymous Sat May 21 06:38:53 2011 No.3095924
File: 23 KB, 206x180, 206px-Solarpipe-scheme.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Actually solar powered thermal power stations are the way of the future. For the entire energy needs of Europe one would need an area that is 70x70 kilometers large and we can store the energy in the form of liquid salts or high pressurized steam during the night and they are build on low value properties like the deserts where they have a fairly constant output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 06:39:53 2011 No.3095929 what do you think about waste heat that extensive use of nuclear power would bring to Earth? Is there a risk that we'll boil ourselves even without greenhouse effect?

Anonymous Sat May 21 06:47:53 2011 No.3095945

>>3095836

actually you're the idiot. i've got a solar powered calculator i've been using for over a decade so it's always been perfectly apparent to me that solar power exists in the uk you fucking moron.

are you completely incapable of reading comprehension? we're talking about solar power being *the* world power source, not whether it's possible to run something in the uk off of solar cells.

solar power in the uk will never be a majority contributor to our total energy production. is this stated a little more intelligibly for you? i honestly can't believe the fucking retards we get in here sometimes.

Anonymous Sat May 21 07:37:53 2011 No.3096125

But iphones are fucking retarded.

they are no better than a normal cellphone (unless you are some stupid fucking teenager).

fucking singularityfags, ALWAYS ABOUT SPEED SPEED SPEED instead of function and usefulness.

i wouldn't be surprised if he gets all his shitty ideas while doing cocaine

Anonymous Sat May 21 08:30:53 2011 No.3096291

>>3096125
Speed (and storage), when it comes to computers, is what allows new and interesting things to become practical; and once certain thresholds are passed, qualitatively different things can be done, real time, on computers.

For example, reasonable quality streaming video is impossible with a bandwidth of less than 300kb/s. Converting that raw data into a video stream requires fast processors, whether the CPU or on the graphics card. And this is just a trivial example.

If we want driverless cars, we need cheap, fast computing to be the brains. Isn't that a useful function?

Build faster computers, and the applications for them will come.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 08:33:53 2011 No.3096297 >So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy >But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs Nice try faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 09:41:53 2011 No.3096458 Nuclearfags: this is fusion power right here what the fuck are you complaining about?

>>	Anomynous Sat May 21 10:24:53 2011 No.3096574 >>3096458 >right here Well, technically its fusion power WAAAAAY over there. By that argument, however, so is coal and oil.

Anonymous Sat May 21 11:07:53 2011 No.3096681

Solar power will almost certainly -end up- being the primary power source, because it can be so decentralised, and a country that has a completely decentralised power network is so much more secure than one with power stations.

There will probably be the odd experimental Thorium reactor and a lot of other alternatives in the next couple of decades, but it'll all fade out once the solar becomes much more efficient with nanomaterials.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:08:25 2011 No.3096687 >terrestrial solar panel power laughingwhores.jpg THORIUM STRONG!

Anonymous Sat May 21 11:22:53 2011 No.3096737

Wait, why do we need only one or the other?

Since thorium doesn't take up acres of land to power a city like pointed out earlier, we can use it as a centralized power source, but individuals could mount solar panels on their roofs to supplement or reduce the need for thorium energy during daytime. Unless there's something I'm not thinking of...

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:25:53 2011 No.3096755 >>3096737 >Unless there's something I'm not thinking of... Funding.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:30:53 2011 No.3096772 The only problem I have with solar energy is that it does generate electricity at night. Or, not enough when cloudy. It can never be the main source of energy, only a supplement.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:34:25 2011 No.3096788 File: 159 KB, 550x539, DysnSphr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3096772 Suddenly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power Suddenly Dyson Sphere

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:42:53 2011 No.3096810 The fuck? not it isn't. Efficiency's hovered around 20% for at least 10 years, now. 40% efficient panels aren't even being produced yet also >extrapolating >an exponentially increasing number

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:48:53 2011 No.3096826 >>3095517 >mfw using solar power on Earth as our main source of electricity would cause an ice age Because it's a really good idea to make sure as little of the suns energy is absorbed by the planet.

>>	atheismIsGay !rhuTqlyXDQ!!CA/2zDsvQ+O Sat May 21 11:52:53 2011 No.3096844 wheres the proof? are there charts? we have moores law for cpus, by what process are solar panels doubling their effectiveness? >>3095531 lol'd

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 11:53:53 2011 No.3096854 File: 237 KB, 425x307, horrorneck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3096826

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:03:53 2011 No.3096894 Stop whining, all of you. It's not about "or" it's about "and" No powersource can provide us with all the energy we need. Also eventually, like fossil fuels and uranium, thorium will run out.

Anonymous Sat May 21 12:07:53 2011 No.3096912

>>3096844
Look:

>>3095834
See the best performing solar panels there? Look at the difference between 1990 and 2010. The two multi-junction trends should be counted as the same line because they are part of the same technological tree.

24% to 42% efficiency, with the most rapid increase occuring more recently.

But, even with independent evidence like this in plain sight, /sci/ tries to appear intelligent by playing the skeptic without actually just looking at the facts.

Kurzweil says it's an exponential trend, and the data shows exactly that (at least for the best performing technology).

Anonymous Sat May 21 12:21:53 2011 No.3096963

>>3096810
20% is plenty. It's the price that's going down fast, and what really matters.

When it gets cheap, light, durable, and attractive enough, it will go up on every newly built or rebuilt roof as an economically superior alternative to shingles, tiles, tin, or tar, and on many walls as a siding alternative.

That right there will supply a large portion of our power needs.

Anonymous Sat May 21 12:28:53 2011 No.3096990
File: 166 KB, 807x349, master race.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

alright solarfags....
CLOUDS

solar status
[] cumulus
[] stratus
[x] alTOLDcumulus
[x]alTOLDstratus

also, i'd like to see your precious solar panels produce desalinated drinking water....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Cogeneration

solarfag status
[]pisswarm seasalt water
[x]ice TOLD purified drinking water

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:29:53 2011 No.3096992 >>3096912 >Kurzweil says its an exponential trend it rests on the assumption that we're in a stable economy though. i don't think it's going to be so exponential for much longer

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:30:53 2011 No.3097000 >>3096990 he thinks clouds cover the entire surface area of earth at any given time doesn't understand that solar panels connect to a grid over a large distance

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:32:53 2011 No.3097014 >>3097000 .... yeah, they only have to cover half the earth.... solarfag status []flat earth [x] in the TOLD of night

atheismIsGay !rhuTqlyXDQ!!CA/2zDsvQ+O Sat May 21 12:33:53 2011 No.3097023

>>3096912
unfortunately this site is full of teenagers who think being pessimists makes them intelligent and being a skeptic makes them right. i wish there was a better forum but i cant really find one as dynamic and quick as this place.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:34:53 2011 No.3097025 >>3097014 No. You obviously haven't done the math.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:35:53 2011 No.3097031 >>3097025 trust me bro, i've done extensive research... night is dark you might learn once your mommy lets you stay up past bed time

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:36:53 2011 No.3097034 File: 3 KB, 126x89, 1301936768347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3097014 keep up the good work, <span class="math">brah[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:36:53 2011 No.3097036 >>3097014 People always dramatically underestimate the amount of raw solar power available. Then, once you do get that through their heads, they dramatically underestimate the difficulty of capturing a reasonable fraction of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:37:53 2011 No.3097045 >>3097031 trolololo There are plenty of good ways to store the energy. I like the one with pumping water uphill. But if you've ignored that, I'm not even going to bother talking to you about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:44:53 2011 No.3097074 THE STOCK MARKET WILL RISE FOREVER, SOLAR PANELS WILL DOUBLE FOREVER

Anonymous Sat May 21 12:45:53 2011 No.3097082
File: 74 KB, 360x355, hurr nuclear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3097036
when compared to nuclear power, solar power is just lacking in all comparisons.

nuclear isn't a bad word people have to get that through their thick skulls.
nuclear != bombs

also....
I'll bet most of your power comes from nuclear sources than solar sources.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 12:49:53 2011 No.3097099 >>3097045 Requires massive amounts of water/height differential. Very much impractical for something that outputs anything in the MW range. You're talking about displacing entire lakes here.

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:03:53 2011 No.3097170
File: 21 KB, 540x603, 20110322.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Meh, even Thorium is limited in the end
The recoverable ores are somewhere around 1.5 Million metric tonnes, which works out to a total energy content of 135 Zettajoules
Annual global energy consumption is already 0.5 Zettajoules, so we are not going to power our civilization all too long with nuclear fission

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:04:53 2011 No.3097175 >>3097170 Retard detected.

>>	Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 13:06:53 2011 No.3097186 >>3095756 >30 Acres >6mw I knew they were bad, but, really? Damn

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:08:53 2011 No.3097190

1. Efficiency: this needs to go up, especially because there is a premium on space. This has happened, but at the expense of the expense of 2 and 3.
2. Price: this needs to go down. But improved efficiency requires greater expense due to rare materials and methods.
3. Materials: building a metric fuckton of panels out of rare minerals, requiring excavation of remote locations, exploitation of poor countries or dependence on China all goes completely counter to the whole ethos of "renewable" energy. Of course middle class solarfags don't actually care about saving the planet, they just care about being cooler than their neighbours.

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:09:53 2011 No.3097193

For one, having a full power grid only on solar panels is retarded. 100% = no go.
Also, i'm belgian, and i'm sorry but, the way our government wastes money on solar panels is bullshit. We don't need fucking solar panels... If we want clean energy, we should be going for wind, along with nuclear and better storage of overproduction of energy.
Also, on the long run, fusion = sauce

>>	Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 13:13:53 2011 No.3097215 >>3095861 Lolno. I never said that. >>3095856 Oh! Neat. They better be building outside the US, the nrc will put a 30 year minimum wait time on licensing just to start construction.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:20:53 2011 No.3097241 File: 23 KB, 288x499, Kornheiser_Why.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3097215 >NRC has 30 year minimum wait time

Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 13:26:53 2011 No.3097260

>>3097241
It's to keep the "rabble" out, the upstarts who aren't familiar with light water reactor safety systems.

The only problem is that is utterly stifles entrepreneurship and innovation in nuclear energy. So they go to France or China instead.

Suffice to say, the nrc really, really fucking needs some restructuring and rethinking.....soon.

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:27:53 2011 No.3097265

>>3097215
>They better be building outside the US, the nrc will put a 30 year minimum wait time on licensing just to start construction.
>Doesn't know anything about licensing.
There is a technological gap between all industries and their respective regulators. You can't regulate what you don't know and as such, the industry and regulators have to grow together to make it work safely. Digital I&C is a great example. The industry was ready to go before IEEE even had standards. There was a lag of about 10-20 years to get everything in place to make it happen. This is not a situation unique to the US and NRC.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:33:53 2011 No.3097292 File: 5 KB, 180x134, Sapphire-Energy-logo-July-2010-180x134[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm appalled at the lack of algae fuel being mentioned here.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:33:53 2011 No.3097293 >>3097260 It's a good fucking idea when nuclear plants have massive potential for damage, in both material and PR terms.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:35:53 2011 No.3097300 >>3097293 That is true, but it does little helping us switch to a more safe type of reactor

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:36:25 2011 No.3097306 >>3097292 >algae biofuel >implying that's not just an extremely inefficient use of solar energy --> fix CO2 to make long-chain fuels >implying we can't do it mechanically a million times more efficiently and cheaper

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:37:53 2011 No.3097307

Solar will only be practical when we have vast arrays in space microwaving power doing
Until then photovoltaic simply can not provide Base Load, it operates only a few hours of the day and the output is intermittent - you cant run trains or streetcars, hospitals, shopping centres, warehouses, factories, foundries, etc on that

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:38:53 2011 No.3097316 >>3097292 or instead of trying to rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic by trying to find a new fuel for cars, we could develop comprehensive multi-modal public transportation systems

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:39:53 2011 No.3097319
File: 67 KB, 661x737, appalledBaby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the hell is it with this binary worldview people?

There's utility for BOTH solar AND nuclear AMONG other energy sources.

Though he certainly didn't live by his own words, Mao Zedong himself said "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a flourishing culture in our land."

Committing all resources exclusively to just one technology will probably not be the smartest thing in the long run.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:40:53 2011 No.3097320 >>3097293 Union Carbide? Love Canal? Gulf Oil Spill? protip: everything in an industrial society can go belly up, it is simply a matter of putting them into perspective and taking the right precautions and being aware

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:40:53 2011 No.3097321 >>3097215 India and China are pursuing thorium reactors pretty actively, but their technology isn't exactly the most advanced. Especially India.

Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 13:41:53 2011 No.3097323

>>3097265
Except, its not like the licensing is stuck in the early 80s, and it takes 30 years to get approval to build a single silicon wafer. Indeed licensing drags behind, but in this case its almost frozen in time.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:45:53 2011 No.3097347 >>3097321 India is doing the awesome thing, fueling Pressurized water reactors with Thorium. All the fun of using a tried and proven system, all the awesomeness of having a hundred times more fuel

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:51:53 2011 No.3097379

>>3097347
>all the awesomeness of having a fuel that costs a hundred times as much
Even extracting uranium from seawater is cheaper than mining and refining thorium.

And thorium doesn't even become nuclear fuel until it's been very, very heavily irradiated with neutrons in a nuclear reactor.

Anonymous Sat May 21 13:53:53 2011 No.3097387

>>3097379
>Even extracting uranium from seawater is cheaper than mining and refining thorium.
lolno
Ever heard of enrichment?
Also, why would it be any more expensive to extract one kind of actinide from a rock, as opposed to a marginally chemical different actinide?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:55:53 2011 No.3097394 >>3097387 And most importantly, we already mine it as a byproduct of rare-earth mining

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 13:57:53 2011 No.3097409 >>3097394 Not to mention thorium contains more energy than uranium

Anonymous Sat May 21 14:00:53 2011 No.3097414

>>3097387
>Ever heard of enrichment?
Not necessary for reactors with good neutron economy, such as the CANDU-derived reactors in India, which use a heavy water moderator.

They are fuelled with natural uranium.

I believe the graphite-moderated reactor that the Americans used to make the plutonium for the gadget and fat man bombs was also fuelled with natural uranium. (The main reason the Nazis didn't get the bomb is that they couldn't figure out that trace boron contamination was interfering with their graphite-moderated reaction design, so they started producing heavy water -- a big, hard-to-conceal industrial operation that was easily sabotaged.)

Anonymous Sat May 21 14:01:53 2011 No.3097416

>>3097323
>Indeed licensing drags behind, but in this case its almost frozen in time.
It's obvious you aren't working in the nuclear industry. Just because there hasn't been a new plant in 20 years isn't totally due to licensing it stagnant. There are new licensing procedures and regulations developed all the time. 10 CFR 52 is a great example.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Sat May 21 14:09:53 2011 No.3097450 >>3095813 implying fossil fuels ate not a renewable resource

GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg Sat May 21 14:12:53 2011 No.3097464

If the Golden Generation was incharge of US energy policy in 2011, we'd wouldn't be in a mess. The same gen that built the Hoover Dam and Manhantan Project and OKed Apollo Moon Missions.

There's a reason why they call 21st Century the Chinese Century. They aren't afraid of technology like the Japanese and they are looking toward thorium.

While the US is a now cluster fuck of
-Religious zealots/Conspiracy fags
-Nanny state liberals who think fusion occurs in breeders
-Welfare queens
-Bigoted CODfags with GEDs
-Hipsters living off of mommy/daddys pensions

The only saving Grace for America is that it still sits on a lot of fossil fuels, and has the wheat belt. Other than that it just leverages debt from its citizens and hurs and durs.

"WE SUCK AGAIN"
-Water Boy Movie

Anonymous Sat May 21 14:17:53 2011 No.3097480

>>3097409
>Not to mention thorium contains more energy than uranium
False.

U-233 is roughly equivalent in fuel energy density to U-235 or Pu-239.

Natural thorium contains no fissile material, and only produces U-233 when irradiated with neutrons.

Natural uranium contains a high enough proportion of U-235 to sustain a chain reaction in some reactor designs, and the rest of it is mostly U-238, which produces Pu-239 when irradiated with neutrons.

Uranium and thorium have equal fuel energy value in breeder reactors, and in non-breeders, thorium has no fuel energy value at all.

India is working on thorium technology because they have been heavily restricted on international nuclear fuel supplies due to their violation of non-proliferation treaties, their CANDU (purchased from Canada or copied from the Canadian examples) reactors can function as thorium breeders but not uranium breeders, they lack the technical sophistication to design their own reactors or enrich uranium or extract uranium from low-concentration sources, they have poor supply of good uranium ore, and they have some of the richest thorium-containing mineral resources in the world, from which they can manage to extract thorium, however inefficiently.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:21:53 2011 No.3097493 >>3097480 huh, thanks for clearing that up

Anonymous Sat May 21 14:21:53 2011 No.3097496

>>3097464
You're sorely misinformed. The reason the USA doesn't do big things anymore is overwhelming greed and corruption which results in lawmakers too scared to upset their corporate owners like BP that they don't dare try anything like large-scale solar plants. Even when federal money is granted for that it's done begrudgingly and after an intense fight with regressive members.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:21:53 2011 No.3097498 File: 32 KB, 206x187, yotta.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3095555 quads is truth

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:22:53 2011 No.3097499 What are solar panels made of?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:23:53 2011 No.3097503 >>3097499 stem cells

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:23:53 2011 No.3097504 >>3097499 Mostly thorium.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:28:53 2011 No.3097521 >>3097499 The sun.

GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg Sat May 21 14:31:53 2011 No.3097533

>>3097496
The US has such lack financial regulations which caused... $Trillions in damage. Actually bubble =/= damage, but AIG alone was making bets on securities with $47,000,000,000 IT DID NOT HAVE (in collateral).

While has stupid long regulations on nuclear energy (Not to mention media black out on LFTR), like the 30 year wait time for NPP licensing.

Don't view US Govt as liberal/conservative. View it as a battle ground for interests. The laws "help" or "hurt" depending how much money your worth.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 14:32:53 2011 No.3097534 maybe someone should tell signore kurzweil about logarithmic growth...

Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 15:22:53 2011 No.3097748

>>3097416
...not when I called them.

Then again, region IV might just be weird

>>3097409
not rly.
To be fair, thorium only really shines in a breeder reactor with continuous processing, and the power of a lftr is in the tiny footprint and incredibly burn efficiency. Safety too.

Anonymous Sat May 21 15:37:53 2011 No.3097806

>>3097480
>>3097480
Nope.jpg

Thorium fuel burns with 90% efficiency, while uranium fuel burns with 66% efficiency. The energy difference from this efficiency is about 60%- 200% larger.

More importantly Uranium must first be enriched sufficiently to get Uranium necessary to be used in fuel cycles. Seven-eighths of Uranium has the 235-uranium extracted out of it. So Thorium requires only a 1/8 to equal the amount of Uranium necessary to run a nuclear reactor.

>>	Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 15:41:53 2011 No.3097821 >>3097806 not if we get traveling wave reactors running. those things can drink up U238 like its nothing

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 15:52:53 2011 No.3097858 >>3097821 That'll be pretty far off. Washington state has the lead on that design and non of their universities have a nuclear engineering program so they have a fuck hard time finding workers.

>>	Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Sat May 21 15:54:53 2011 No.3097866 >>3097858 indeed. a sad state of affairs. the DoE needs a kick in the pants and the public needs some education. god i hope my video series can achieve that. i'm terrible at forcing something to be viral

Anonymous Sat May 21 18:22:53 2011 No.3098437

>>3097821
To my knowledge TWRs are only about 20-25% efficient on the fuel, about as good as a fast reactor but the whole point of TWR's as i have always heard them described would be that they will never reprocess the fuel and instead leave it buried in the ground after they do their thing for 40-60 years.

Not to mention that they have to be primed with Plutonium and in VERY large quantities due to the giant load of fissile material they would start off with, we could probably only make half a dozen or so if we used every ounce of Plutonium we had in the US. Maybe 2-3 times that many could be built if we also reprocess all the waste fuel rods we have laying around.

People often overlook the fact that Plutonium is really one of our most valuable resources when it comes to nuclear programs because more than a fuel it is a match that can be used to start up just about any reactor design and its something we can make more of given a bit of time.

Anonymous Sat May 21 18:30:53 2011 No.3098472

>Energy companies realize their window is closing on traditional fuels
>Pushing another dependency on another fuel like uranium or thorium
>Throw uranium under the bus to make nucleaphiles even more fervent with their support
>It's hard to make as much money when the market for solar is so wide open

Don't worry within the next century you'll have your solar power. You won't own the panels though. Power companies will come out and install their panels that you will lease. You will also be charged per usage. More power, higher bill. You'll only have one solar dealer per region because they'll lobby the government. Any independent dealers will be labeled as "unfair" competition and run out of town, just like now. Manufacturers won't care because the power companies will make a deal and pick one to supply them all. The other manufacturers will go out of business.

Ah, America. Land of the free market.

Anonymous Sat May 21 18:35:53 2011 No.3098491

>>3097858
>>3097866

My community college has a nuclear tech program and apparently there will be a reactor operator program, all purely to replace the people about to retire.

I feel bad for the people asking the colleges to start these programs because I get the feeling they won't have many takers.

Anonymous Sat May 21 18:48:53 2011 No.3098529

>>3098472
>point out the problem of government granted monopolies
>rally against free market
Sure.

Also its hard to say they are trying to switch to another limited fuel in thorium as we are already pulling literally millions of tons of thorium ore out of the ground, I heard china has one rare earth site with 9 million tons or thorium rich ore just sitting there. The US has 3,200 metric tons of processed thorium sitting in the desert. It only takes 1 ton of thorium to make 1GW of power for a year and right now we figure the US is sitting on 300,000 tons of thorium. Honestly fuel costs are nothing because we have basically no other use for the stuff as it stands right now.

Even if demand shoots through the roof it will not even remotely make the fuel portion of the process expensive as there is 3x as much thorium out there as uranium and it does not need any sort of enrichment process.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 18:53:53 2011 No.3098539 >>3098529 >free market pays people to sit in office and benefit companies >rally against the process of government

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 18:53:53 2011 No.3098546 >>3098539 Well thats called regulatory capture, and its a bad thing.

Anonymous Sat May 21 18:57:53 2011 No.3098560

>>3098546

It's like having an honor system which gets violated. Then getting mad at the honor system for not making sure people use it honorably. And wanting less of an honor system because big honor system is ruining the country. The honor system keeps forcing people to not act honorably by expecting them to act honorably.

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 18:59:53 2011 No.3098571 >>3098560 Got any ideas for fixing it then?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:02:53 2011 No.3098585 >>3098571 Run the dishonorable out of town like in the Old West. It's the American way.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:04:53 2011 No.3098597 File: 105 KB, 590x775, C50.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098585

Anonymous Sat May 21 19:07:53 2011 No.3098608
File: 16 KB, 400x260, nuclear-power-a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

LOLing over how you Fat Nigger Americans even think that solar power will save the world. Feels good living in 1st world France who get 85% of our energy from nuclear power and not some 3rd world nigger shithole like America.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:07:53 2011 No.3098610 >>3095555 Every time I see my light bill I scream bloody murder at idiots who don't want nuclear power plants. Is there a way to telepathically send hate and rage?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:09:53 2011 No.3098619 File: 102 KB, 550x782, 20070409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098610

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:11:53 2011 No.3098625 >>3098608 Black guy here. Why you gotta be so mean?

Anonymous Sat May 21 19:13:53 2011 No.3098634

>>3097806
Wow. I don't think there's any part of that post that's right.

You're confusing the traits of specific reactor designs with fundamental physical facts.

Specifically, you're comparing the real-world performance of the most primitive sorts of obsolete-design uranium reactors that have been in use generating large amounts of power for decades to the theoretical performance of the most advanced sorts of unproven thorium reactor designs.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:13:53 2011 No.3098635 >>3098625 lol enjoy your coal and useless solar you nigger Amerifat

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:14:53 2011 No.3098642 >>3098635 But I advocate Nuclear power. Why you gotta be so hurtful?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:18:53 2011 No.3098661 File: 58 KB, 500x431, bacon-cheeseburger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098642 so much fat in one post sage for fatass thread

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:21:53 2011 No.3098670 File: 68 KB, 485x610, Bacon Meat Mug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098661 That's not good enough!

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:23:53 2011 No.3098679 File: 79 KB, 321x260, 1306002128004.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098661 >>3098670 not enough fat for the nigger American

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:24:53 2011 No.3098686 This turned out into a turd rather quickly. And here I thought I could learn a thing or two about energy from here.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:25:53 2011 No.3098692 >>3098661 >>3098670 >>3098679 Buddah was fat. Its a sign of good living. Don't hate. All the best guys are fat. Fat Albert. Santa The Michelin tire guy That dough thing that you tickle its belly. Buddah

>>	Anonymous Sat May 21 19:37:53 2011 No.3098762 >>3098692 Better: "Hitler wasn't fat, and look how it turned out!"

Anonymous Sun May 22 03:59:53 2011 No.3100644

Bumping this to humiliate the NUKULAR thread.

How's that ancient and overly-expensive tech working out for you? Oh that's right, genuine 1st world nations like Germany are actually REDUCING NUCLEAR POWER because they realise it's not the panacea it is made out to be in /sci/.

I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because as soon as /sci/ learns about nuclear reactors in high school physics class, the think they're Dr. Emmet Brown.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:02:53 2011 No.3100657 >>3100644 because they realise it's not the panacea it is made out to be in /sci/. Or, fearmongering by the anti nuclear brigade.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:05:53 2011 No.3100684 >>3100657 >Ignores all points made in the post >Chalks it all up to fearmongering, shows intellectual immaturity

Anonymous Sun May 22 04:22:53 2011 No.3100749

>>3100684
No really, it is because of fearmongering there and they have been doing it for years. Fukushima happened to be a good tipping point but they were already looking at reducing usage and taking plants offline.

Even the people pushing solar and wind over there are admitting it could triple energy costs and they will still have to put more fossil fuel power plants online to make up the energy difference as well.

And even more amusing is they are also now importing power from nearby countries that use nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:35:53 2011 No.3100801 HURF DURF HURF DURF HURPA DURPA DERP IN THE FUTURE THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE WAY OF GENERATING POWER HURFA DERFA DURPA HERP

>>	EK FAN CLUB Sun May 22 04:39:53 2011 No.3100816 File: 17 KB, 690x656, 1273386867157.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3098692 >Buddah was fat.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:43:53 2011 No.3100829 >>3098762 Was going to list that, but saying "Hitler did it!" wasn't original enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:48:53 2011 No.3100839 File: 77 KB, 590x390, 374ae0b7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] either/or thread is still running? haters on boths sides are still hating? Any other moderates here anymore who think that there's room for both solar and nuclear (and others)?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 04:50:53 2011 No.3100841 >>3100839 Of course there is room for both, I never quite understood it as war but I say nuclear is the more affordable practical short term measure and we can start doing more solar stuff as it becomes cost effective.

Anonymous Sun May 22 04:52:53 2011 No.3100850
File: 62 KB, 330x244, 340x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3100839
This. Extremists, regardless of what they're mad about, are always, always wrong.
The future will hopefully be a mix of small scale nuclear, solar and other alternatives, coupled with disconnected local power grids and dramatically reduced power consumption, which is the key really.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 17:27:53 2011 No.3103349 Coal is king

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Sun May 22 17:30:53 2011 No.3103360 >>3098692 3 are animated, the other 2 aren't fat.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 22 17:35:53 2011 No.3103382 If Buddha wasn't fat, why are all the statues and pictures of him fat? Buddistfag status: told

Anonymous Sun May 22 17:47:53 2011 No.3103436

Solar Energy is complete shite. I spend half my time thinking it is a total fabrication, and that there is a hidden chemical battery hooked up to the panel.

The panels are getting cheaper, no doubt about it. But how do you convert that power into usable fuel? Alcohol? It would take billions of acres of farmland synthesize enough ethanol to fuel our economy. Hydrogen? Its hard to think of a less effeciant fuel. Chemical Batteries? Think about what all that acid would do to our environment!

Not to mention the polish lightbulb syndrome... how are you supposed to run a power grid on solar energy when most of the lights are on at night?

Its one of those situations, where if this, this, and that were a certain way, it would be feasible, but changing any one of those things would be difficult, if not outright impossible, and together they present an insurmountable obstacle.

Were running out of oil. If the constant fighting over the middle east and its oil reserves weren't a big enough clue, The hubbert curve should give you a good indication of how utterly fucked we are.

There is some oil left in shale, norway, and the middle east that we still have access to. There is some natural gas left in america, the chinese have their oil reserves which will last them a good long while, but we are sipping on a straw that is in somebody elses milkshake.

I can't wait for the whole thing to be over. Life has been so shitty up to this point that i almost welcome nuclear war as an end to this ugly pitiful existance we all share on this earth.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]