Alternative Power Sources?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman


An ecological footprint is not the same as space taken up. Firstly, wind farms produce no pollution, and secondly, they only 'use' a tiny fraction of the land. The rest can be used for other purposes.

If you want to be real consistent, you have to consider indirect footprint, i.e. the relatively large amount of heavy manufacturing and it's direct and indirect impacts in producing your generating equipment and producing and transporting it's fuel supply, if any. Wind is a lot worse in that context than if you just look at the direct impacts of wind generation, and you also have to account for the level of redundancy needed to get a particular load profile (i.e. X MW for how many hours, deliverable, not just installed capacity)

[Zkribbler]

I didn't know that we had any Geo-thermal plants in California. It'd be really cool if we could get them to work and to not kill geysers .

MtG put out some great facts on solar I always thought the photovoltaic ones were made out of silicon wafers (i.e. processed sand), so they'd be rather cheap and non-polluting. I'm surprised to hear that sand in the gears is such a problem. You'd think someone would have come up with a sand-proof sleeve to fit over the joints. Oh well.

I'm guessing the reason that hydroelectric dams work well at making electricity and that ocean tide generators don't is that hydroelectric dams have the advantage of water falling from a greater distance and thus building up a lot of momentum before hitting the turbines.

Fission nukes are 99.99+% clean, but if there is ever a leak One speck of plutonium in your lung and you're dead.

That's why fusion reactors hold such allure. There's always been huge technological challenges to fussion reactors, but when has that ever stopped us?

[Starchild]

In the short to medium term, I can't see anything that would satisfy our energy needs beyond a mix of renewable sources where they are appropriate and a nuclear energy backbone. One gram of plutonium releases as much energy as a tonne of oil. It's hard to argue with those facts....

In the long term I'd like a fusion system but, barring that, a solar array in space would be cool. Followed, of course, by the migration of the species offworld and the Earth being preserved as a park.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Under the pressure of the ecologists, Germany is on its way to suppress his nuclear electricity which still amounts to 30%. Curiously the same ecologists are happy with the coal as a primary source of more than 50% of their electricity. :

I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Same as bytes, etc.

k = kilo
M = mega = 1000k
g = giga = 1000m
t = tera = 1000g

although it's more common to refer to thousand gWh than it is to refer to tWh.

Thanks, I always lose track of what's beyond giga

That means the tidal plant of La Rance produces 600 gWh a year, whereas an average nuclear plant produces 8000 gWh a year. For comparison, the Three Gorges dam is expected to produce 84000 gWh a year !

[Whaleboy]

The environment is America's main enemy. It's your national duty to kill it by burning as much oil as you can. If the arabs wont give it to you, take it!!

[Sandman]

If you want to be real consistent, you have to consider indirect footprint, i.e. the relatively large amount of heavy manufacturing and it's direct and indirect impacts in producing your generating equipment and producing and transporting it's fuel supply, if any. Wind is a lot worse in that context than if you just look at the direct impacts of wind generation, and you also have to account for the level of redundancy needed to get a particular load profile (i.e. X MW for how many hours, deliverable, not just installed capacity)

Wind may be a lot worse when you consider that, but so is every other method. Still, you are right about the need to take into account the level of redundancy, since wind is unreliable. Dunno what can be done about it, apart from diversifying to other renewables and keeping fossil fuel stations on standby.

[DAVOUT]

Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I've read on the same EDF document (see link above) that new technologies are being researched to have cleaner processes of coal burning. Understandably, the document is very enthusiastic about it (EDF takes part to the project ), but do you know if this research has led to anything serious so far ?

No more info, but we can expect an improvement associated with a sharp increase in cost which will make the coal less competitive since the pollution currently created is not included in the cost.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Could not those present difficulties induce the American citizens to save the energy rather than wasting it with ridiculous car consomption?

Are you crazy ? Reducing car consumption would mean the Americans give in to Al Qaeda and to Saddam !

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Are you crazy ? Reducing car consumption would mean the Americans give in to Al Qaeda and to Saddam !

The reverse is also, and more seriously, true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I were in charge we'd have most of our power coming from nukes since they don't produce green house gases and we would be able to slash the money we give to the murdering Arabs.

Well, as long as you can dispose of the nuclear waste decently...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, as long as you can dispose of the nuclear waste decently...

Some good ways already exist to postpone the problem for decades / centuries. There is hope we find some real good ways to dispose defnitely of the waste in the meantime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some good ways already exist to postpone the problem for decades / centuries.

One of the main problems is storage. Reuse is good to cut down on the waste, but you still have to ship it, and a lot of places don't like the idea of waste travelling through them, so it's still a pain.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One of the main problems is storage. Reuse is good to cut down on the waste, but you still have to ship it, and a lot of places don't like the idea of waste travelling through them, so it's still a pain.

Well, you can do like all our governments consistently did for decades, and ignore the tree-huggers who try to block the convoy. Besides, we storage our nuclear trash in subterranean bunkers in remote places, so very few people from the neighborhood can complain.

And you can do stupid things too. Heck, in my hometown, there was a surface nuclear dump for years. After the dump has been sent elsewhere and the terrain "cleaned", guess what was built on it ? An elementary school (and I'm not kidding)