Milestone

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Yeah, until they start producing more energy than what's put in, they're really quite useless from a commercial point of view.

[Berserk87]

You can only do so in a very ineffective way, either by creating vast timebombs of great volume hydrogen stores, or by creating hydro storage. Both are not actual realistic proposals.

im talking about solar panels along with lower power, higher efficiency devices, a lot of the devices being used in the house are fairly inefficient.

as for the power storing, each house would have its own couple panels and a couple deep cycle batterys, or whatever battery we use a couple years from now.

each house would be off the grid with solar panels, and it would have less of an impact on the environment then making giant hydro dams (im in BC, so all of our power is hydro)

[The Rev]

Meh... Honestly, I think nuclear fission plants are bad enough.... I dont think we need to move toward FUSION... I mean, seriously, we'd effectively be recreating (albeit on a much smaller scale) the SUN on earth.... Sounds kinda scary to me.

[BoredBozirini]

Meh... Honestly, I think nuclear fission plants are bad enough.... I dont think we need to move toward FUSION... I mean, seriously, we'd effectively be recreating (albeit on a much smaller scale) the SUN on earth.... Sounds kinda scary to me.

With that attitude we would still be in the Middle Ages.

[LOC Veteran]

Yeah and all we need is Doctor Octavius to help control the fusion reaction anyways.

[Berserk87]

Yeah and all we need is Doctor Octavius to help control the fusion reaction anyways.

:laugh:

[BoredBozirini]

Yeah and all we need is Doctor Octavius to help control the fusion reaction anyways.

And Spiderman to keep Doc Oc in check.

[Berserk87]

And Spiderman to keep Doc Oc in check.

you go get the parts for doctor octavious' arms, ill go find the radioactive spiders.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

you go get the parts for doctor octavious' arms, ill go find the radioactive spiders.

Why bother with all that when you can hire this guy directly:

[Cold Blood]

Well,they can do fussion,with deuterium but deuterium costs a lot and it's very expensive to produce energy this way. The resulting nucleoses are pretty stable so they don't emit harmful radiation.

The bulk of the radiation consists of the free subatomic particles that some reactions might produce. Hydrogen can be produced in mass quantities from ocean water. The big problem is getting hydrogen to the required temperature in order to start the nuclear fussion. First of all, the temperature is enormous and secondly it is very challenging to contain such a hot mass because anything that gets in contact with it is instantly vaporized.

The only way that I've read about so far to contain that hot mass is to generate a strong electromagnetic field which keeps the hot mass in the center of the reactor without directly touching any of it.

I would say that nuclear fussion is the biggest hope that we have.

I'd rather we focused on one thing and do it right rather than start a lot of researching projects.

[petrossa]

Are we any closer to practical fusion power plants than we were 30 years ago?

yes. already they are at 50% efficiency in the test reactors. http://www.iop.org/EJ/NuclFus

[peacemf]

they should just start a roll out in these new energies, instead of constantly telling "stop driving, eating, living cos your killing!"

most the bulbs in our house are now energy efficient, but they take a while to power up, and dont feel as bright as they should be :(

i think solar panels on houses is a real possibility, at least in the UK where energy costs are just getting toooooooo high......

it would help if the energy companies didn't post their MASSIVE profits the day before they jack the prices up!

[Fred Derf Veteran]

yes. already they are at 50% efficiency in the test reactors. http://www.iop.org/EJ/NuclFus

50% efficiency is useless. There is still a long way to go and it will likely get exponentially harder to get over the top.

[Growled Member]

50% efficiency is useless. There is still a long way to go and it will likely get exponentially harder to get over the top.

My thoughts as well.

[petrossa]

I tend to let the experts advise me. :p They seem quite sure they'll get there sooner or later. The hardest part has been done, proof of concept. Going by past results with new inventions, once proof of concept has succeeded real life implementation follows.

[Hypnagogue]

Solar and wind, when integrated into our general structures, combined with increased efficiency construction, is without a doubt the best option. However, it does not fully meet our demands. Nuclear power, as in fission, remains the cleanest form of power we have. It's a shame it's been so stigmatized.

I do believe fusion will one day be realized, but it would be foolish to bet the farm on it, so to speak.

[petrossa]

Betting the farm on impractical inefficient systems as Solar and Wind is much worse.

Both are not consistent in output, also you can't ramp them up in case of excess demand. Since on average these systems run at 30% efficiency, varying wildly over a 24 hour period from zero to 100% it can only be a workable realistic system if a radically new system electricity storage/distribution has been invented.

Since batteries are a no go area, they are pretty much maxed out already, that leaves either hydro storage or hydrogen storage. Both highly inefficient, impractical and in hydrogens case very dangerous.

[Berserk87]

Betting the farm on impractical inefficient systems as Solar and Wind is much worse.

Both are not consistent in output, also you can't ramp them up in case of excess demand. Since on average these systems run at 30% efficiency, varying wildly over a 24 hour period from zero to 100% it can only be a workable realistic system if a radically new system electricity storage/distribution has been invented.

Since batteries are a no go area, they are pretty much maxed out already, that leaves either hydro storage or hydrogen storage. Both highly inefficient, impractical and in hydrogens case very dangerous.

what...

solar panels ALWAYS use batterys.

over the last few years there have been a couple companys claiming to be close to new battery technology that would increase battery capacitys 10x.

[petrossa]

what...

solar panels ALWAYS use batterys.

over the last few years there have been a couple companys claiming to be close to new battery technology that would increase battery capacitys 10x.

I guess you should read up on batteries first: http://www.batteryuniversity.com/

What is the ultimate miracle battery?

The ultimate miracle battery is nowhere in sight and the battery remains the 'weak link' for the foreseeable future. As long as the battery is based on an electro-chemical process, limitations of power density and short life expectancy must be taken into account. We must adapt to this constraint and design the equipment around it.

People want an inexhaustible pool of energy in a small package that is cheap, safe and clean. A radical turn will be needed to satisfy the unquenchable thirst for portable and mobile power. It is anyone's guess whether a superior electro-chemical battery, an improved fuel cell, a futuristic atomic fusion battery or some other groundbreaking energy storage device will fulfill this dream. For many, this break will not come in ones lifetime.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

People want an inexhaustible pool of energy in a small package that is cheap, safe and clean. A radical turn will be needed to satisfy the unquenchable thirst for portable and mobile power. It is anyone's guess whether a superior electro-chemical battery, an improved fuel cell, a futuristic atomic fusion battery or some other groundbreaking energy storage device will fulfill this dream. For many, this break will not come in ones lifetime.

I'll go out on a rather safe limb to suggest that it will arrive before nuclear fusion becomes a practical and operational source of power.

[petrossa]

Duly noted. I'm 54 and don't plan to live beyond the age i start to get fragile so it won't be in my lifetime that's for sure.

But it doesn't need a genius to imagine that any storage of energy is still bound by the laws of nature as we currently know them.

Currently we are at a daily consumption of about 15 terawatts and growing steeply.

Wind/Solar efficiency currently at 30% taking in all the variables means you'll need to store at the very minimum 10 terawatts to keep the world going for a day, and enough solar and wind generators to quickly charge it.

So to get 15 terawatts you need 50 terawatts of installed solar/wind generators given it's unreliability.

At present a 1 gigawatt of sea windfarm is budgeted at 5 billion euros.

So to get let's say, half of the daily needs from wind you'd need 25000 x 5 = 125 trillion euros as a base investment. Add to that the infrastructure, storage (which as yet is impossible) i guess half your 'free' energy clocks in at anywhere from 150 to 200 trillion euros to build.

Which gets us at cost of 200 trillion euros divided by 7.5 real terawatts = 26 euros/watt.

Even if you do the impossbile and you crank up current Solar/Wind efficiency by 100% you'd still end up at 13 euros/watt.

To get that down to the current prize of 5 eurocent per kilowatt, it'd better have a MTBF in the order of centuries :laugh:

Storing 10 terawatts safely will mean that you'll need a adequate batteries capable of handling that.

The only ones we have now that anyway near practical are chemical ones.

I don't want to be near any chemical that holds 1 terawatts of energy, nor is it a safe idea to have it within 100ths of miles. A chemical battery failing and releasing 1 terawatts at once will be an awesome sight. Let alone 10 terawatts.

So you'll need to redistribute 10 terawatts over a large global area, which means placing chemical bombs all over and wiring them up.

Not what you'd call a practical solution.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Duly noted. I'm 54 and don't plan to live beyond the age i start to get fragile so it won't be in my lifetime that's for sure.

But it doesn't need a genius to imagine that any storage of energy is still bound by the laws of nature as we currently know them.

...

Not what you'd call a practical solution.

Currently, a region would be hard pressed to generate more than 30% of its energy needs from renewable sources. That being said, many regions generate less than 15% so setting a minimum goal of 15% would be a good start. At least that will keep the R&D money flowing and generate jobs in the "green economy". Ontario, which is blessed with hydroelectric resources, gets 26% of its power from renewable sources.

I'm perfectly fine with using nuclear fission until renewable energy becomes more commercially viable. Ontario gets 37% of its energy needs from nuclear fission.

And that means that the remainder comes from fossil fuels which, if nothing else, offers near-perfect reliability. Ontario is closing all of its coal-fired generators because they are the worst of the worst when it comes to pollution (both in terms of carbon and smog).

[MikeChipshop Member]

My parents live in the Adalucian mountains in southern Spain, they're farm doesn't have a connected power supply and they run their entire lives from solar panels connected to a room the size of your average toilet cubical full of batteries.

The whole thing cost ?2000 to set up.

Unfortunatley the amount of sun i get over here in London, i'd be lucky to be able to make one luke warm cup of tea a fortnight!

[petrossa]

Currently, a region would be hard pressed to generate more than 30% of its energy needs from renewable sources. That being said, many regions generate less than 15% so setting a minimum goal of 15% would be a good start. At least that will keep the R&D money flowing and generate jobs in the "green economy". Ontario, which is blessed with hydroelectric resources, gets 26% of its power from renewable sources.

I'm perfectly fine with using nuclear fission until renewable energy becomes more commercially viable. Ontario gets 37% of its energy needs from nuclear fission.

And that means that the remainder comes from fossil fuels which, if nothing else, offers near-perfect reliability. Ontario is closing all of its coal-fired generators because they are the worst of the worst when it comes to pollution (both in terms of carbon and smog).

All modern coal fired plants are smog free, there's an extensive exhaust cleaning process. It's the older ones which do the harm. Carbon is good for the plants the more the better.

One guestimates that there's enough coal to keep us going for centuries

France does 80% fission. My wallet is very happy?:pp Electricity is dirtcheap compared to the rest of europe.

That's my idea. Do fission till fusion becomes workable.

'renewable' energy doesn't exist. The materials and machines necessary are costly and wear out, so you'll need constant maintenance at a high rate. Especially wind generators are very fragile devices.?

Solar for real time use is impossible. The cost per watt is just to high. On a per household basis it can serve as an addition to centrally distributed power for the greenies to make them feel good, but never replace it.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

All modern coal fired plants are smog free, there's an extensive exhaust cleaning process. It's the older ones which do the harm. Carbon is good for the plants the more the better

Just because some PR-wiz managed to get the "Clean Coal" slogan to stick doesn't mean that coal is remotely clean. The best coal-fired plant is still worse than a natural-gas fired plant since Coal generates both smog and acid rain on top of the carbon emissions that you likely don't care about. Coal scrubbers do not prevent air pollution, but they do reduce it by filtering out some of the most harmful pollutants. Even with scrubbers and the tallest smokestacks the best you can hope for is to put the smog higher up in the atmosphere so that it doesn't disperse in your own back yard. That still is hardly responsible.