U2start.com | Generic News and Politics Topic

Originally posted by Risto:True, but admit it: it is easy to say when you are halve the world away

Problem is that coal mining (lots and lots of people got sick from that!) and oil isnt safe either. Until solar power can provide everyone enough energy we have to live with these dangerous forms of energy. All we can do is make it as safe as possible.

uhm there is not only solar energy, there are also other alternative energies such as geothermical, water, wind (you ought to know well the last there in Netherlands

).
it's fake they can't substitute oil gas and nuclear .. they could be ready to go, it's only that don't match economical and political interests .. like always

Mr_Trek

14 years

Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]

Going off the scale used, this is even less than 3 mile island.

I don't know what scale you're talking about, but the Japanese Government took what's happening to a 6 on the scale where 7 is Chernobyl.

Yogi

14 years

Originally posted by Risto:True, but admit it: it is easy to say when you are halve the world away

Problem is that coal mining (lots and lots of people got sick from that!) and oil isnt safe either. Until solar power can provide everyone enough energy we have to live with these dangerous forms of energy. All we can do is make it as safe as possible.

Enery of the sun will NEVER be enough and can't be enough for the world that we live in. Just to produce enough electrical energy for the Europe itself, you would need sun light collector that would be huge as the territory of France. The other things that we forget is that there's no pultion-free energy;

Let's take energy of the wind. To collect it, you need windmills. And to produce just one windmill you have to spend so much electrical and oil energy that produced windmill will never be able to produce it. So, there's more energy you have to put in that windmill than that windmill will ever be capable of producing.

Also, to produce just one sun-light collector you need even more energy and then collectors last only 15-20 years. After that you need to produce new ones.

Whether we like it or not, nuclear energy will be used in future more and more and not less. It's just the price of the world we live and and the way we live.

Risto

14 years

When you cover 0.1% (or 1% i cant exactly remember) of the world with solar panels of high efficiency we can have enough for the whole world.

Clover68, I know those alternatives. Of course they could replace oil and nuclear power in the future though

But none of them can at this moment replace the oil and nuclear energy sources.

Yogi: the windmill data you mention is a bit dated. They are more economical now, but still not ideal.

yeah

14 years

Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

Let's take energy of the wind. To collect it, you need windmills. And to produce just one windmill you have to spend so much electrical and oil energy that produced windmill will never be able to produce it. So, there's more energy you have to put in that windmill than that windmill will ever be capable of producing.

Where did you get that from?
a modern windmill needs 2-6 months till the factor of Energy Returned On Energy Invested is bigger than 1.

Risto

14 years

Originally posted by yeah:[..]

Where did you get that from?
a modern windmill needs 2-6 months till the factor of Energy Returned On Energy Invested is bigger than 1.

Hmm thats lot less then my professor said a year or two ago. Think the truth is somewhere in between.

yeah

14 years

yep, it's probably between months and years - depends on what source you use (I took wikipedia, not really scientific, I know)
But the assumption that there is no energetic amortisation for windmills is based on studies from the 70s. Modern windmills are another story.

Risto

14 years

I dont doubt it, just expected a higher number. I wouldnt be surprised if the professor tried to shock us. That was the whole intention of the course. We need to improve efficienct by factor 5 to have enough energy in 2050.

The cost of energy is still high for windmills though ~ €0.09 / KWh instead of ~ €0.04

Mr_Trek

14 years

I heard something about some japanese scientists who wanted to put solar panels on the moon. Would be a lot more effective and could easily provide for us all. No atmosphere in the way up there

Risto

14 years

Cant see that happening anytime soon

Especially since most space programs are idle.

yeah

14 years

Originally posted by Risto:I dont doubt it, just expected a higher number. I wouldnt be surprised if the professor tried to shock us. That was the whole intention of the course. We need to improve efficienct by factor 5 to have enough energy in 2050.

The cost of energy is still high for windmills though ~ €0.09 / KWh instead of ~ €0.04

yep, the costs are higher (even though the costs for the depository for nuclear waste aren't included in the latter figure), windmills produce noise, might have an effect on the climate, etc...

it's certainly not the holy grail - I just wanted to be the smartass who corrects that initial quote I used.

Besides, I heard Obama supports windmills, so they're part of the leftie nazicomunnist conspiracy anyway.

Risto

14 years

Its not an easy problem

Its just like politics, we can all bitch and nobody is right

Generic News and Politics Topic

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start