Pfffffffffftbtht.

Nuclear explosions don't work that way. You need highly enriched uranium or plutonium that has neutrons fired into it through a screen of heavy water to slow the neutrons down, because if they move too fast they won't catch and won't cause enough atoms to split.

Nuclear waste from reactors isn't even the same element. It couldn't EXPLODE if we tried to make it.

No, I'm talking about the booster rocket that's all around that waste. I'm sure that would scatter the stuff pretty far and wide.

I was under the assumption that we had achieved 30ish percent efficiency on solar panel technology. Wikipedia has it listed as approaching a theoretical 29% limit.

That said, my idea was always this: a government subsidized building code that required all new homes and commercial structures to have at least one solar panel installed on them connected to the power grid. All old homes would receive a tax credit for retroactive installation of solar panels. In this way you could easily gain hundreds of square miles of solar cell connected to the power distribution system, spread out in enough varying regions that weather wasn't even a large factor.

As for nuclear power, how else is it gonna work?

I mean you only have so many ways to produce a voltage, and the most effective is using magnetic fields in turbine generators. The only other way nuclear fuels could be used is with gigantic thermocouples, and even then it's not as effective as the steam. Plus you need water to cool the damn thing.

It's all quite effective, although civilian plants are generally old and ridiculous. Boiling off coolant, really.

What we'd need is some breakthrough in fusion technology that made it sustainable. We can achieve nuclear fusion, but it takes entire buildings filled to the brim with massive capacitors to even start the thing and get a second long bright flash of fusion before the thing is out of juice and needs to recharged for the next month.



Pfffffffffftbtht.

Nuclear explosions don't work that way. You need highly enriched uranium or plutonium that has neutrons fired into it through a screen of heavy water to slow the neutrons down, because if they move too fast they won't catch and won't cause enough atoms to split.

Nuclear waste from reactors isn't even the same element. It couldn't EXPLODE if we tried to make it.

With Solar, it is just a question of efficency, and there was a nice scientific chap on John Stewart recently who showed that we're on track for solar to be more than efficient enough to power pretty much everything by 2018.

I used to be pro wind - even if its inconvienent for my hobby, but the places where its good often seem to involve a lot of cold in those winds it needs... Theres cases here in the UK of Wind Plants consuming more than they produce in the year to prevent cold damage in the winter.

True at the moment. However, if in the semi-near future every single home in the world were to be powered by its own turbine (or a couple of them), things would quickly escalate into a cluster[censored], climate-wise.

Do enough of that, and you obviously must end up screwing up the climate. :shrug:

Renewable energy can't carry us alone. There's simply not enough energy in the system. Obviously it's not a concern now, but if we start ramping up wind power to the point it actually provides a significant amount of global energy usage, there will be effects.

And besides that, the efficiency of the best, top-notch and most expensive solar panels available today is only 18 [censored]ing percent. That's tragic.

What's even more tragic than that is the way nuclear energy is used in nuclear power plants. (I bet some don't know that either.) See, that's fun: the nuclear energy of the radioactive thing heats up water which evaporates into steam which turns the turbines which generate electricity. BRAVO, MANKIND, BRAVO!!! :facepalm:

True at the moment. However, if in the semi-near future every single home in the world were to be powered by its own turbine (or a couple of them), things would quickly escalate into a cluster[censored], climate-wise.

A couple of months ago I saw a sort of documentary on television stating that using windmills costs even more fuel than not using them as the wind fluctuates too much, so the old fashion power plants constantly have to adjust to supplement the power generated by the windmills. This means that the power plants don't run at their most efficient level and constantly waste power by throttling up and down..

but it's not like I'm an expert on the subject and I have no idea if that was founded on actual facts since it was in a program where people where complaining about a windmill park being build next to their town (so it could be rather one-sided).

Build solar panels in the Sahara and we remove a lot of the energy problem without causing issues.

You do realise that if we were to cover a large portion of Sahara in efficient enough solar panels, that would also result in a significant climate change? Sun heating up Sahara (and any other part of Earth for that matter) is an important factor for the entire climate system. If we manage to develop solar panels of, say, 60% efficiency and cover a quarter of Sahara with those, that means that the covered portion of Sahara is receiving 40% of the amount of energy which it used to receive before the solar panels were there and the rest is transferred into electricity (not to mention also how the solar panels would undoubtedly affect the winds in Sahara).

Solar panels in space that is beamed via microwaves to space cables that carry the energy to the ground.

And besides that, the efficiency of the best, top-notch and most expensive solar panels available today is only 18 [censored]ing percent. That's tragic.

What's even more tragic than that is the way nuclear energy is used in nuclear power plants. (I bet some don't know that either.) See, that's fun: the nuclear energy of the radioactive thing heats up water which evaporates into steam which turns the turbines which generate electricity. BRAVO, MANKIND, BRAVO!!! :facepalm:

You mean like wireless energy transfer? We don't quite have that yet. Tesla died too young.

You mean like wireless energy transfer? We don't quite have that yet. Tesla died too young.

You could always use heat from the sun to boil water to drive a turbine to power a maser to zap some distant water to create steam to power a turbine...

You could always use heat from the sun to boil water to drive a turbine to power a maser to zap some distant water to create steam to power a turbine...

Hate to be a downer, but I'd warrant that renewable energy is the ONLY thing that can carry us alone. Non-renewable energy, by its very definition, cannot, since it will inevitably be depleted. Renewable energy will too, sure, but the energy stores of the sun immensely outweigh those of the Earth, and until that occurs it is only the throughput of renewable that is limited, and not the quantity.

LOL.

Hey better yet, why don't we put turbines along Earth's orbit (which we'll somehow keep in place relative to the Sun and prevent them from falling towards the Sun) and as Earth goes along around the Sun it kicks those turbines and turns them? HA!

As I mentioned, it cannot. There will come a time when there isn't enough energy in the system to provide for us, and if we even try we'll cause significant damage to the ecosystems here. Right now, our most efficient non-renewables can carry us for a long time, but what we really need is nuclear fusion, and while it's been 5 years away for the past 20 years, we *are* getting closer. And, of course, by the time our society is using so much power the sun itself can't beam enough at us, it's probably time to think about moving out anyway. Maybe find a nice house on mars, or mine venus for minerals.

Getting over the infinite growth delusion would probably buy us some time.

We don't have to grow continually, our power usage per/person is rising as well, and we have billions of people who in the not-too-distant future will be starting to use just as much power as us. Either we stop using anywhere near as much power, or renewables can't do it alone.

I meant the systemic assumption of effectively inexhaustible resources. Our worldwide economy is based on it, is reliant on it (as are most national ones). The presumption that individuals will (and are entitled to) use more and more and more is one aspect of it.

Ah, well, assuming we ever get around to fusion power, that *will* be effectively inexhaustible - or rather, the time it takes to use all the fuel is more than enough time to develop methods of getting fuel from new places. Renewable energy isn't, isn't going to provide enough power, and isn't anywhere near as efficient in $/MW as other methods. The death of the sun may matter little to us now, but if we ever plan on leaving this little rock, or if somehow we manage to stick around for a few billion years, it'll become a great concern indeed.

That's like giving a crack addict a few kilos of coke. Sure, he's not going to run out any time soon, but it doesn't solve the core problem. And the big difference is, humanity has loads more addictions than just energy.

In my opinion, it is vital that we, as a species, have a change in attitude before we're let loose on the rest of the universe. Rapping other planets is not cool .