page 2 says go get a prius

6/13/2007 2:07:34 PM

It's crazy how many people are driving those things. I'm in Charlotte and i see one every few minutes.

6/13/2007 2:14:41 PM

god, some of you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old...

90 years with out any additional uranium mining...

with current reserves, reprocessing and new plants the fission fuel supply stretches much much farther than 90 years... (on the order of a 1000 or so)

even assuming exponential power need growth.


honestly I think in the next 100 years we will figure out fusion and cheap safe fuel cells....

electric cars can outperform ICE powered cars.... ICE has a big advantage of range currently, something fuel cells, efficent, and safe hydrogen storage and transfer will fix whenever they mature...

Quote :

"If fusion is actually possible, great."

i hope you mean in a human controlled reaction... b/c if you didn't just look up at that really really bright spot in a clear sky, that's a bigass ball of fusion....

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : s]

6/13/2007 2:22:32 PM

^Dude i realized it was 90 years without any more mining. I was just commenting that we could use the already existing fusion ball in the sky. But yes Nuclear is where it's at in terms of power plants.

^Some of the newer electric cars and suvs have ranges between 200 and 400 miles.
For example Pheonix has an all-electric sport-utility truck that has a range of 250 miles, and costs 45,000$. It can be charged using a specific charger in less than 15 minutes.

^Or another example is Lotus is making an electric SUV with a range of 350 miles and 644 horsepower. The top speed is only 155mph, but that's good for an SUV. (10 minute charge time also)


haha an suv that goes 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds and can be recharged in 10 minutes with 644 HP. I want one.


Anyone else want one?

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 3:08:38 PM

now that would be worth getting...

solar has a long long ways to go before it becomes really viable.... and honestly i think we have a better chance of building a space elevator before solar ever gets really really good...

6/13/2007 3:21:38 PM

^Then how come there are plenty of houses in certain areas of California that are so efficient because of solar energy that they give energy back to the power grid? I've been to a fully solar powered house in San Diego and it paid for itself in under 10 years (cost of solar panels), and they get a check from the power company every month because they give back energy to the grid.

I'd love to have a house that makes energy. Is that not viable for you? It seems pretty viable to me...

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 3:24:17 PM

they sure dont pull 1+ kwatt/m^2 ....

they also dont work so well in places with more clouds, say Seattle, or for that matter in higher latitudes...

but you're right, overall they are useful, i just don't think they can be the complete solution....

6/13/2007 3:26:21 PM

solar doesnt work at night

nuclear does with no carbon emissions

6/13/2007 3:29:03 PM

You're right they don't pull that much, but in terms of individual use, if they pay for themselves in under 10 years (as long as you plan to be in the house that long) then they're defin worth it. I have another friend with a dome house in San Diego and the whole top is layered with PV solar panels and he's making money.

^That's why you have a series of batteries the panels charge for the night.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 3:29:14 PM

meh, you're right tho....

i think nuclear, with solar add-in (useful b/c peak times are during hot summer days when solar is best really) is really the way to go...

6/13/2007 3:39:11 PM

solar is a waste of time

pv cells are only ~10% efficient anyway

100% nuclear grid with electric plug ins cars would be the best

6/13/2007 3:41:03 PM

I know California will pay for half the installation if you decide to go solar.

Quote :

"solar is a waste of time"

Are you INSANE? Have you not just read what i wrote? Of course new technologies are not going to be as efficient but as time goes by they will get better. You think the first ICE vehicle was as efficient as the ones today?

Yes PV today is only 10-15% efficient but hell cars are only 25-30 percent efficient. Those are still around. Give solar a few decades. That efficiency will double and tripple until we can utilize that 1+kw/m^2.

Dude i don't think living in California and installing solar PV panels on your house (having the government pay for half of it) and getting checks in the mail every month from the energy company is a waste of time. Although you do you have make a time investment if you want it to pay for itself (5-10 years average).

Oh and after those 10 years it's far more efficient than a nuclear plant. You still gotta pay monthy for the nuclear power, whereas after the make up period solar is FREE.

I mean dude unless you got a mini nuclear plant in your back yard, you lost the argument. I agree nuclear is the direction to go, but hell what i'm saying is FREE. You still gotta pay for nuclear from a plant. I can't stress this enough FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN!!!

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 3:41:49 PM

a few decades

thats a waste of time when we have options that are a direct replacement for coal and natural gas facilities right now in the form of passive fission reactors

passive means that in the event of complete failure the reactor still receives cooling water

6/13/2007 4:07:49 PM

Quote :

"I mean dude unless you got a mini nuclear plant in your back yard, you lost the argument. I agree nuclear is the direction to go, but hell what i'm saying is FREE. You still gotta pay for nuclear from a plant. I can't stress this enough FREE ENERGY FROM THE SUN!!!"

There's no free lunch, son.

6/13/2007 4:10:36 PM

i've always wondering if we could ever harness the power of lightning but i haven't done any research to see if someone has tried it....anybody know?

6/13/2007 5:30:41 PM

people have but the arrays have to be huge to get enough power to make them worth it

6/13/2007 5:31:50 PM

tanstaafl

6/13/2007 8:48:30 PM

Quote :

"people have but the arrays have to be huge to get enough power to make them worth it"

huh? I hope you mean huge as in to be able to consistently get struck . . . even then you wouldn't need a giant farm of close together lighting towers. They could be spread out like cell phone towers. But it would still be hit or miss for consistency.

The problem comes from building infrastructure that can handle the enormous surge when a tower is struck and then being able to store that power to be used later.

6/13/2007 9:57:57 PM

^^^^^

Quote :

"There's no free lunch, son."

Oh yes there is. Once you pay off the initial cost it is pretty much free. The energy (1+kw per M^2) is already there, we're just figuring out how to use it. So yeah i'd pretty much say solar energy is free energy compared to any type of monthy payment from a power plant.

6/13/2007 10:45:58 PM

^^ what the fuck else would i mean

6/13/2007 11:05:29 PM

Quote :

"i hope you mean in a human controlled reaction... b/c if you didn't just look up at that really really bright spot in a clear sky, that's a bigass ball of fusion...."

come ON, yes, of course that's what I mean. Jesus. I can speak in full sentences, so obviously I understand that the sun is natural fusion.

6/13/2007 11:06:20 PM

Prawn Star, CO2 is NOT a pollutant and cannot be classified as such. Its idiotic to claim that what comes out of us as a result of breathing is "pollution"

Quote :

"We DO need to regulate the GH effect and prevent it from increasing CO2 levels and increases the temperature of the planet. You could make the argument that more CO2 means more plants! But there's been studies that show that increased CO2 does NOT help plant production because of results of increased temperature damaging the land and growing conditions. "

Please point out these studies, b/c I've seen plenty that show just the opposite.

6/13/2007 11:34:31 PM

Higher temperatures can harm plant growth by drying everything out. However, as temperatures rise, so does ocean evaporation and thus precipitation, eliminating the "dry-out" problem by having it rain daily.

The truth is we really have no idea what a warmer planet will look like. For all we know it will be a better place to live with longer growing season and warmer winters.

On the otherhand, it might be worse, with rising sea levels and more severe storms.

6/13/2007 11:41:37 PM

Yeah man

6/14/2007 12:15:27 AM

^^^Sorry, TKE-Teg, you lose this one. CO2 is defined as a pollutant under US law. Why? Because the Supreme Court says so.

Quote :

"In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars. ... But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting."

If you've got a problem with that, then you should take it up with them. But there's no point in arguing something that was settled in the land's highest court 2 months ago.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : 2]

6/14/2007 10:51:45 AM

Haha yeah. Dude make this analogy. Shit comes out of everyone, and if there was shit everywhere, the EPA would name that as a pollutant too. (or is it already?) CO2 needs to be regulated and increased CO2 levels WILL harm plants.

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2006/07/co2_benefit_to.htm
There's plenty of other studies where that came from. Increased greenhouse effect will most likely cause great damage to drops and plants world-wide.

"Open-air field trials involving five major food crops grown under carbon-dioxide levels projected for the future are harvesting dramatically less bounty than those raised in earlier greenhouse and other enclosed test conditions — and scientists warn that global food supplies could be at risk without changes in production strategies."

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 10:56:03 AM

Quote :

"increased CO2 levels WILL harm plants."

I don't necessarily agree with this. Numerous studies have shown that crop productivity will go up in the short term with an increase in temperature. Crops may be moved farther north, and growing seasons may change, but increased temperature and CO2 levels is by and large beneficial to the world's agriculture industry.

Of course there is a tipping point, but we are not at that tipping point yet. I'm sure you will find that historically, hotter years coincide with higher yields. And we all know that higher levels of CO2 increase plant production and fertility.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : 2]

6/14/2007 11:06:52 AM

I guess i just hate the heat, and humidity.
^ That all is logical, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 11:10:53 AM

Quote :

"Once you pay off the initial cost it is pretty much free"

having a steap initial cost does not make something free, you just killed your own argument. thats like saying "once i've paid off my car I get to drive around for free"

6/14/2007 11:46:26 AM

^no because you have to pay for gas. Once the solar pays for itself, it's pretty much free power. Even the government pays for half the installation. In my opinion it's a pretty good investment.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 11:48:35 AM

^ if you live in the desert, than yeah.

but it is still far from free

6/14/2007 12:07:18 PM

Quote :

"Once the solar pays for itself, it's pretty much free power. Even the government pays for half the installation. In my opinion it's a pretty good investment."

Quote :

"Once you pay off the initial cost it is pretty much free"

\


Do you understand English? IT IS NOT FREE. You just contradicted yourself.

6/14/2007 12:13:46 PM

Quote :

"Once the solar pays for itself, it's pretty much free power."

You're assuming it is going to pay for itself. A solar panel breaks down over time, last I heard they need to be replaced every 10 years or so. When you add in all the cost for maintenance, you are saving money only because they government fit so much of the bill. If you were forced to pay for all of it yourself, it would be a terrible investment.

6/14/2007 12:29:51 PM

Quote :

"Solar-power Costs Some people have a flawed concept of solar energy. While it's true that sunlight is free, the electricity generated by PV systems is not. As you can see from our discussion of a household PV system, quite a bit of hardware is needed. Currently, an installed PV system will cost somewhere around $9 per peak Watt. To give you an idea of how much a house system would cost, let's consider the Solar House -- a model residential home in Raleigh, North Carolina, with a PV system set up by the North Carolina Solar Center to demonstrate the technology. It's a fairly small home, and it is estimated that its 3.6-kW PV system covers about half of the total electricity needs (this system doesn't use batteries -- it's connected to the grid). Even so, at $9 per Watt, this installed system would cost you around $32,000. "

http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell7.htm

6/14/2007 12:38:56 PM

^Yeah, I remember that EPA ruling. Caused me to lose that last bit of faith in the government. So every living creature is "polluting" So sad.

6/14/2007 1:17:09 PM

^Yeah it's sad that the EPA would rule something a pollutant when animals give off CO2. But too much of anything is bad, but it's hard to justify CO2 as a pollutant and i was surprised at that ruling.

^^I realize solar is not a good investment for most people. Your average PV set up would cost $30,000+ and would take a decade to pay for itself depending on the location and how many KWs the system produces. We also have to realize though that i'm trying to be optimistic here. Nixon actually thought the US would be 20% reliant on solar power by 2000, and that was just a rediculous asssumption.

Again solar is only 10-15 percent efficient, but that number has been going up, just because something isn't a good investment now, doesn't mean it doesn't have possibilities for the future. You're right, the investment MIGHT only be feasible in California, and after it pays itself off. Aside from all that, i believe it's a good investment for the planet, and a good investment in an alternative energy source. Sure it's not great at 10-15 percent, but hopefully with newer technologies the efficiency will increase.

If i were in California and i had money i would probably invest in a set up because that's what i believe in, and i'd like having no or decreased power bills. You've also got to remember that you can't just use solar you have to supplement the solar with a variety of things. Natural heatpumps, house orientation for cooling/heating, and prismatic dome natural lighting.

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/

Anyway i think spending my money in the future on an environmentally sound source of renewable energy is a good investment in on itself. There are plenty of people who agree with me, and even if you end up losing money in the long run, you're still using solar power, and for some people that's reason enough to spend the money.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 1:33:40 PM

or you could just let the power company make the investment in a nuclear plant and you dont have to buy a god damn thing and you still get your zero carbon emissions

6/14/2007 1:40:29 PM

^Yeah but if i had the money, and i was into PV solar technology i'd make the investment, and then i could say i'm running my house off of sunlight. The 1+kw/m^2 is just going to waste on the top of the roof. Yes i'm all for nuclear but i think it's much more environmentally sound if each house supports itself. It's just odd to me how we rely so much on power and resources from someplace else. It would be more fitting to our planet, and more natural and efficient if each house could support itself in terms of power and recycling.

For example .3% percent of all California's power is from solar power. That's a big number compared to the people living there. Even Arnold wants to put PV systems on "a million california rooftops".
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/information/big_picture.html

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 1:43:15 PM

you know to get more than 1 kw/sq m you are going to need a PV cell that is at least 75% efficient

do you know how far away that is?

right now there is some work on 40% efficient cells but they are just in the early research phase

if they make it, it will be at least a decade before you could even hope to buy them

good luck trying to utilize all that power because it isnt economically viable

6/14/2007 1:59:05 PM

Just because something isn't economically viable doesn't mean people shouldn't do it. Do you think coal, nuclear, or any form of energy was economically viable right away. Of course i'd only get 10-15 percent now with solar, but I believe that people should spend money on things they believe in that in the future might be the norm. If people didn't break away and do new things, and have new ideas then nothing would ever get done. All i'm saying is that someday i'm 99 percent positive that'll we'll utilize alot of the energy from the sun. Isn't it stupid to have all that power shining down on us and not use it artificially? Some day it'll happen and i'm just saying people need to break away from the idea of saving money and maybe put a little money into supporting a good cause.

6/14/2007 2:03:37 PM

yes, but we have better options in place now for reducing carbon emissions

we should devote resources to bringing those options online rather than waiting for an ultra efficient PV cell that isnt even going to work all the time

a nuclear facility is going to give you power all the time with no interruption other than lines down due to weather

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 2:09 PM. Reason : its not a good cause when other options are available now and would be more cost effective]

6/14/2007 2:08:18 PM

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

6/14/2007 2:10:23 PM

^^So what you're saying is even though we're getting 1+kw/m^2 power to us for free by the sun, it's not a "good cause" to research it? I agree Nuclear is waaaaay more cost effective (right now), and we should totally go that direction. But i wouldnt' say solar is not a "good cause".

Plus uranium will eventually run out, however long it takes. So i would defin say without a doubt that Solar power is a good cause to research, even if it isn't cost efficient now. So if people want to put money into something that will be very very beneficial in the long run, i have no problem with it.

Alright i'm gonna make a very "tree hugger" remark here. Every organism on earth aside from humans can strive on power from the sun, and we have to rely on burning things, and using up stuff to meet our "energy needs". Wouldn't it be smarter if humans could find a way to fully utilize all energy from the sun? We wouldn't be wasting any other resources, and we'd have power forever until the sun died.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 2:11:16 PM

no wonder you want to pursue shit that isnt efficient

you are a fucking hippie

6/14/2007 2:27:59 PM

^HAHA
Notice how i said "i'm gonna make a tree-hugger remark here". From context clues that obviously shows i'm not a hippie and i'm going to make a hippie remark. If i were a true hippie i would have just said that without adding in the preface.

"Naw dude, Independent films are those black and white hippy movies. They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding." -Name the character.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 2:29:44 PM

Quote :

"or any form of energy was economically viable right away."

actually, there where several energy sources like this

windmills
water wheels
coal powered steam plants

6/14/2007 2:41:03 PM

^Yeah but there was still a period where they were ineffficient for most people to use, and cheaper just to get energy/resources from somewhere else. Sure the technology for those sources are simpler and that time period is shorter.

For example whenever water wheels were invented (i think they date back to India around 400bc) they probably weren't efficient for everyone to use right away. Cost of wheel, closeness to water source, etc. It wasn't until development that more people could start using them.

Solar power can we thought of the same way. Although PV panels were developed decades ago, the technology is advanced and will take a while to get above 20-40 percent efficiency, they still have promis for the future, and i'm just saying that energy sources arn't perfect right away. Sure solar power will take a long time to perfect, if that, but that doesn't mean we should discredit it as a promising source of power for the future.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 2:58:37 PM

bunch of mini-hindenburgs..sounds great

6/14/2007 3:00:24 PM

Quote :

"Just because something isn't economically viable doesn't mean people shouldn't do it. "

But I thought it was free.

6/14/2007 3:00:34 PM

^^ The hindenburg used hydrogen, and blew up. I think we've learned about that, and current fuel cells are a tad bit more reliable. Remember gas blows up too.

^Power from the sun is free, but it takes an initial investment and decades of research to figure a way how to get that free power. Just like with hydroelectric power. Once you figure out how to stick a damn or waterwheel on a river, the resulting energy is free, because you've got gravity working with you, but that doesn't mean it didn't take money to start up. Whereas coal, gas, and even nuclear take a constant investment in gathering those resources. Hence the terms renewable, and non-renewable.

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

Notice how renewable energy source is listed as free energy in terms of engineering.

Renewable energy sources account for 14% of the world's energy consumption and thats defined as "free energy" in terms of power production and engineering.

http://www.solarsystems.com.au/154MWVictorianProject.html

That one will produce 154MW's. Take it that's small compared to a 600-800MW nuclear plant, it's still a step in the right direction. Plus lets not forgot the thousands of jobs, and R and D centers it creates in the process.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2007 3:02:53 PM