Oznium.com Store
Oznium Forum
The value of this forum is in the interaction with your fellow LED lighting enthusiasts.
Register today! - It is FREE and quick

Why Solar Energy isn't Practical

Author
Message
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:30 am

I did some research just to put to rest some arguments my coworkers had about how great solar energy is and how we should switch to it. I found that NYC consumes roughly 250,000,000 kW*hr/day of electricity. Also, My Fine Home Building Magazine says the average daily solar radiation for a south facing collector, mounted equal to its latitude in NYC is 4.25 kW*hr/(day*m^2). Now figure out how many square meters a solar array of 100% efficiency would be. Also do the same for something more practical of 20% efficiency.

Do the calculations and you should find for 100% you get an area of 58,823,529.4 square meters. For a practical solar array of 20% you get an area of 294,117,647.1 square meters (113.6 SQUARE MILES)!

There are some things that are ignored about in this problem. This doesn't include that the solar array would have to be inclined at an angle of roughly 40 degrees. Also, it doesn't include inefficiency in power transfer from the array to the holding area. It also assumes that there are no clouds and full sun. One of the biggest assumptions is that it doesn't include the amount of power that would need to be stored for use at night.

All this is for just one city.
alkatmsu

Joined: Nov 08 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: Kentucky


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:08 am

On a city-wide scale, solar power (at the efficiency levels available now) wouldn't make much of a difference. However, consider an average home in a more rural area. You're not going to have streetlights, huge flashing signs, thousands of traffic signals, etc to be powering; just lights for a few rooms, and some appliances. Given solar likely couldn't power everything (turn on all the lights, microwave stuff, while firing up the home theater system) all the time, but it would certainly help reduce dependence on the grid.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:11 pm

alkatmsu wrote:
On a city-wide scale, solar power (at the efficiency levels available now) wouldn't make much of a difference. However, consider an average home in a more rural area. You're not going to have streetlights, huge flashing signs, thousands of traffic signals, etc to be powering; just lights for a few rooms, and some appliances. Given solar likely couldn't power everything (turn on all the lights, microwave stuff, while firing up the home theater system) all the time, but it would certainly help reduce dependence on the grid.


Ok, I ran more numbers. In Indiana residents pay 7.275 cents per kW*hr (average) and the average house uses 888 kW*hr/month. I also looked up solar arrays for sale to the public. The most common cost was ~$1,000 per array with area 1 square meter with an array life of 15 years (assuming no tree limbs or anything damages them, this is BEST life possible). Also, these solar arrays were 12-16% efficient not 20%.

Using the current prices and electrical usage, the average person will spend roughly $11,500 on electricity in 15 years. Taking the 4.25 kW*hr/(day*m^2) at 20% efficiency and assuming 10 hours of usable sunlight w/ 20 days a month of sun a resident would need 127 m^2 of array. Multiply this area by $1000 (each array is 1 m^2) and it comes to a cost of $127,000 with a 15 year life.

I'm willing to bet most every educated person would rather pay $11,500 every 15 years than pay $127,000 every 15 years. Back to the title, solar energy isn't practical solution. Both in a econimic and space content.

But you are right Alkatmsu, at a VERY high cost to the consumer (you and me), solar energy would reduce the dependancy on the grid.
SuBXeRo

Joined: Oct 31 2003
Posts: 1891
Location: River Edge NJ and Scottsdale AZ


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:33 pm

the ost of solar panels is still very high, but most investments will pay off in about 5 to 15 years for an average home. Most of these consumers are able to sell their excess electric back to the powerplant and make a profit.

They have also desgined new solar panels that use cheaper materials and accomplish the same task. These new panels also look like shingles so they blend in nicely on your house.

and just a fact i heard on modern marvels. The most productive solar panel farm is in the rainiest and gloomiest part of the U.S.
SuBXeRo

Joined: Oct 31 2003
Posts: 1891
Location: River Edge NJ and Scottsdale AZ


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:36 pm

but then again ur talking to someone who lives down the street from APS which is a major solar panel researcher and has a huge solar farm, ill take pictures, and a university that is the only one in the country with a solar oanel testing facilt and is the only one that has a sustainability major and is in the middle of theblazing sun.
KrzysD

Joined: Nov 07 2007
Posts: 1138
Location: Streamwood IL


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:41 pm

solar panel technology right now kinda sucks actually less then i think 30% of the panel can actually convert the light that enters into usable energy so intill that number gets alot higher solar panels aren't pratical.
corvettecrazy

Joined: Dec 17 2003
Posts: 4357
Location: moved (twice)


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:46 pm

PwrRngr: Now redo you calculations for an area such as Hawaii where electricity and gas costs are some of the highest in the US. You will see solar collectors on almost every house in Hawaii. (atleast I did when I was there), they wouldn't be there if they were not practical/cost effective.

Another thing, per my calculation, 33 degrees is the optimal slope for a collector in NYC.

I think your title should be changed to "why solar engery isn't practical everywhere"
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:25 pm

corvettecrazy wrote:
PwrRngr: Now redo you calculations for an area such as Hawaii where electricity and gas costs are some of the highest in the US. You will see solar collectors on almost every house in Hawaii. (atleast I did when I was there), they wouldn't be there if they were not practical/cost effective.

Another thing, per my calculation, 33 degrees is the optimal slope for a collector in NYC.

I think your title should be changed to "why solar engery isn't practical everywhere"


Tooche, you are correct in the title. Places that have lots of sun and big wide open spaces make good areas for solar arrays (but that's a very limited part of the US). By practical I meant that they are not a practical replacement for coal.
jol102001

Joined: Feb 12 2004
Posts: 5815
Location: Lake Charles, LA -- USA


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:00 pm

your right, solar energy sucks.... that's why the govt. is giving cuts to help build nuclear plants.
mx107marlin

Joined: Aug 12 2007
Posts: 3095
Location: Fairborn, OH


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:23 pm

And on that note... I think that Nuclear power will be the future... Once we get some new technology to reduce the chance of meltdowns (although it is extremely low now) Nuclear power will be the wave of the future. It's the only way that hydrogen or electric-powered cars will ever work as well.

I don't think that Solar power will ever be a grid replacement... However, it will turn out to be a good thing as a source for certain items that need some power but don't really have a need to be connected to the grid. Ex: Pumps, Lights, and Small appliances that are mobile.
corvettecrazy

Joined: Dec 17 2003
Posts: 4357
Location: moved (twice)


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:29 pm

jol102001 wrote:
your right, solar energy sucks.... that's why the govt. is giving cuts to help build nuclear plants.


That is a retarded arguement. The federal gov as well as most states give tax breaks/rebates for the use of solar energy, as well as the installation of solar space heating and domestic hot water.

So what energy source sucks now based on your arguement?

mx107marlin: that may be, but the limiting factor will always be what is done with the toxic waste produced.
mx107marlin

Joined: Aug 12 2007
Posts: 3095
Location: Fairborn, OH


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:22 pm

corvettecrazy wrote:
mx107marlin: that may be, but the limiting factor will always be what is done with the toxic waste produced.


Put them on a rocket, powered by hydrogen (made from the electricity from the nuclear plants) and shoot them into the sun...There's plenty of toxic waste there anyways, seeing as how it's a giant nuclear reactor :laugh:

Of course even that would only last so long.... Since the planet would lose mass with each rocket launch, eventually we would all have "Global Weight-reduction" from the constant loss of mass from our earth. It would take a hell of a long time though...

I dunno, that's a crazy little idea that I thought up the other day... at least I'm not aware of anyone else having proposed that... I'm not saying that that particular plan is perfect, but it's a shot.

What would be involved in raising giant windmills (or some kind of device that could harness power from wind) into the jet-stream? Doesn't the wind always blow up there, and pretty quickly too if I recall...
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:57 pm

One of the reasons there aren't more nuclear plant right now is because of government regulations and the current speed at which nuclear technology is moving. By regulation, before somebody who's building a nuclear plant even breaks ground they must have EVERYTHING already laid out and approved. Once it's approved there can be no deviation from the original plan at all. The problem is that by the time the plant starts to get built, the technology they originally had is no longer the best. They can not change anything without starting over.

So a plant can be designed to be the best but by the time it's actually built it's almost obsolete technology.
Cooper

Joined: Mar 19 2006
Posts: 1770


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:08 pm

I think the most practical plan for solar energy is to install arrays in areas where they'd get the most exposure; huge arrays in the deserts of the southwest, for example . Then you put the power on the grid and use it remotely in urban areas . I don't know why you'd want to reduce dependency on the grid . The grid is hugely important for sharing and distributing power; it will be even more so when there are more individual generators (in this case solar panels) . The idea is just to stop using ecologically destructive means of generating electricity, like the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser degree the use of nuclear power plants .
Short of someone producing cold fusion, or some kind of free endless electricity generator based on new discoveries in physics, I still see solar power as the best hope for generating clean energy . Hopefully the future will see a lot of solar installations, more wind turbine plants, and a minimum of nuclear plants to maintain the nationwide supply during off-peak hours for the environmental-based generators .
We've just got to get more consumers on board, which will stimulate technological improvements in the products as manufacturers compete . Which in turn will attract more buyers, etc etc ...

As for toxic waste.. I seem to recall that launching satellites is hugely expensive . I can't image that it would be cost effective to start building thousands of rockets, filling them with heavy waste, and then firing them at the sun . Also, what about the potential hazard of a rocket malfunction that could scatter sensitive nuclear pollutants through the atmosphere ? Seems dangerous and impractical . It would also take probably billions of billions of rocket launches to reduce the total mass of the planet by even the smallest fraction of a percent, I don't think that would be a practical concern in the lifespan of our species .
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:19 pm

Cooper wrote:
I think the most practical plan for solar energy is to install arrays in areas where they'd get the most exposure; huge arrays in the deserts of the southwest, for example . Then you put the power on the grid and use it remotely in urban areas . I don't know why you'd want to reduce dependency on the grid . The grid is hugely important for sharing and distributing power; it will be even more so when there are more individual generators (in this case solar panels) . The idea is just to stop using ecologically destructive means of generating electricity, like the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser degree the use of nuclear power plants .
Short of someone producing cold fusion, or some kind of free endless electricity generator based on new discoveries in physics, I still see solar power as the best hope for generating clean energy . Hopefully the future will see a lot of solar installations, more wind turbine plants, and a minimum of nuclear plants to maintain the nationwide supply during off-peak hours for the environmental-based generators .
We've just got to get more consumers on board, which will stimulate technological improvements in the products as manufacturers compete . Which in turn will attract more buyers, etc etc ...

As for toxic waste.. I seem to recall that launching satellites is hugely expensive . I can't image that it would be cost effective to start building thousands of rockets, filling them with heavy waste, and then firing them at the sun. Also, what about the potential hazard of a rocket malfunction that could scatter sensitive nuclear pollutants through the atmosphere ? Seems dangerous and impractical . It would also take probably billions of billions of rocket launches to reduce the total mass of the planet by even the smallest fraction of a percent, I don't think that would be a practical concern in the lifespan of our species .


First, the first law of thermodynamics says there will never be a machine that generates energy for free. There will always be a cost (there will never be a perpetual motion machine).

Second, don't talk about cost effectiveness when you're promoting solar energy. See above for how it's not cost effective, for majority of the US.

Third, if you want to transmit power distances (from desert to developed places) there is going to be even more loss through transmission. When you're dealing with something as inefficient as solar power you need all the power you get. Sending it across states isn't going to result in much gain due to loss.
mx107marlin

Joined: Aug 12 2007
Posts: 3095
Location: Fairborn, OH


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:40 pm

Cooper wrote:
As for toxic waste.. I seem to recall that launching satellites is hugely expensive . I can't image that it would be cost effective to start building thousands of rockets, filling them with heavy waste, and then firing them at the sun .


Right now you're correct... although there is maglev launch technology that may drop the price from the current $4,000/lb down to $750/lb and eventually down to around $100/lb as well as eliminate the riskiness of having a giant bomb going off in a controlled reaction that we currently use.

It might be practical to do it eventually, it definitely wasn't an instant solution.
jol102001

Joined: Feb 12 2004
Posts: 5815
Location: Lake Charles, LA -- USA


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:15 pm

corvettecrazy wrote:
jol102001 wrote:
your right, solar energy sucks.... that's why the govt. is giving cuts to help build nuclear plants.


That is a retarded arguement. The federal gov as well as most states give tax breaks/rebates for the use of solar energy, as well as the installation of solar space heating and domestic hot water.

So what energy source sucks now based on your arguement?

mx107marlin: that may be, but the limiting factor will always be what is done with the toxic waste produced.


I didn't mean to convey the message that nuclear power is better b/c gov't is giving it breaks/rebates..... what I meant to say was nuclear power can power significantly more houses that solar energy can and they will be building many plants b/c the gov't is starting to give cuts. Solar energy is ok it each person sets it up individually, but for people in apts. this wouldn't work. Also, even if you cover your whole roof you would still need some other source of electricity. I think solar energy pays for itself (if you buy it to set up) after 5 years.
SuBXeRo

Joined: Oct 31 2003
Posts: 1891
Location: River Edge NJ and Scottsdale AZ


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:00 am

you guys want to see what could be the future of renewable power sources. check this




or this if the vid doesnt come up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLIiGTZxH5s

it would take i think they said on tv 330 of these in the US to power everything. and ti doesnt use anything but the greenhouse effect to work. now tell me this couldnt be the future. we have plenty of land that these can be built on. at 3 sq miles a piece they arent small, and their impact on saving the environment is HUGE
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:32 am

SuBXeRo wrote:
or this if the vid doesnt come up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLIiGTZxH5s

it would take i think they said on tv 330 of these in the US to power everything. and ti doesnt use anything but the greenhouse effect to work. now tell me this couldnt be the future. we have plenty of land that these can be built on. at 3 sq miles a piece they arent small, and their impact on saving the environment is HUGE


I say it, that will never be built. Did you see the size comparison, it's **** HUGE! A nuclear plant could be built a lot smaller than that and produce more power (it would be big but small in comparison).
SuBXeRo

Joined: Oct 31 2003
Posts: 1891
Location: River Edge NJ and Scottsdale AZ


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:41 am

it is actually being built in australia and if completed will be the tallest structure on the planet. If it goes well there and we cant solve out nuclear waste disposal or find another viably green power source, this may be it. Wave farms are also another good power source. About 5 sq miles i think it was could power all of britain.

one way or another we have to go green with our powerusing our environment may not be as efficient as using nuclear or fossil fuels, but these generators only have maintainence and building costs, the rest is generated by the planet itself.
TRogers

Joined: Feb 09 2005
Posts: 6083
Location: Ohio


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:35 am

I like solar path lights.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:17 am

This is kinda out there but nuclear power plants house ALOT of very dangerous energy. If the us and not saying this will happen, starts building nuclear facilities all over the place then the potential for attacks from whomever could grow. Especially with the unstable environment the us provides in many places. Also when building lots of nuclear power plants many things go into consideration. With them being built CONSTANT safety checks must be done routinely. With this the government would have to pump more money into things like the EPA and such. Nothing will be a perfect substitute for coal but there are several other options we have that are cleaner. And i think that this is the issue when talking about alternative energy sources. Just something to help cut down on the amount of crap we pump into the environment.
mccook8

Joined: Jun 01 2004
Posts: 744


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:23 pm

PwrRngr wrote:
I did some research just to put to rest some arguments my coworkers had about how great solar energy is and how we should switch to it. I found that NYC consumes roughly 250,000,000 kW*hr/day of electricity. Also, My Fine Home Building Magazine says the average daily solar radiation for a south facing collector, mounted equal to its latitude in NYC is 4.25 kW*hr/(day*m^2). Now figure out how many square meters a solar array of 100% efficiency would be. Also do the same for something more practical of 20% efficiency.

Do the calculations and you should find for 100% you get an area of 58,823,529.4 square meters. For a practical solar array of 20% you get an area of 294,117,647.1 square meters (113.6 SQUARE MILES)!

There are some things that are ignored about in this problem. This doesn't include that the solar array would have to be inclined at an angle of roughly 40 degrees. Also, it doesn't include inefficiency in power transfer from the array to the holding area. It also assumes that there are no clouds and full sun. One of the biggest assumptions is that it doesn't include the amount of power that would need to be stored for use at night.

All this is for just one city.


From wikipedia:

"With over 8.2 million residents within an area of 322 square miles (830 kmē), New York City is the most densely populated major city in the United States."

So....it would require a total area of arrays of a size just over 35% of the city's...

Seems to me that, from an overhead view, rooftops pretty much match that percentage in most urban areas.....
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:02 pm

mccook8 wrote:
PwrRngr wrote:
I did some research just to put to rest some arguments my coworkers had about how great solar energy is and how we should switch to it. I found that NYC consumes roughly 250,000,000 kW*hr/day of electricity. Also, My Fine Home Building Magazine says the average daily solar radiation for a south facing collector, mounted equal to its latitude in NYC is 4.25 kW*hr/(day*m^2). Now figure out how many square meters a solar array of 100% efficiency would be. Also do the same for something more practical of 20% efficiency.

Do the calculations and you should find for 100% you get an area of 58,823,529.4 square meters. For a practical solar array of 20% you get an area of 294,117,647.1 square meters (113.6 SQUARE MILES)!

There are some things that are ignored about in this problem. This doesn't include that the solar array would have to be inclined at an angle of roughly 40 degrees. Also, it doesn't include inefficiency in power transfer from the array to the holding area. It also assumes that there are no clouds and full sun. One of the biggest assumptions is that it doesn't include the amount of power that would need to be stored for use at night.

All this is for just one city.


From wikipedia:

"With over 8.2 million residents within an area of 322 square miles (830 kmē), New York City is the most densely populated major city in the United States."

So....it would require a total area of arrays of a size just over 35% of the city's...

Seems to me that, from an overhead view, rooftops pretty much match that percentage in most urban areas.....


Also, look at the assumptions made (they are huge and outrageous). That's the minimum area assuming no clouds, full sun for 24 hr/day, no loss in power transmission. If you want a more realistic estimate, change from 24 hrs/day of sun to 12 hrs/day of sun (REALISTICALLY there will never be 12 hr/day of full sun). This change will double the array size because you need the same power in half the time. So, realistically you're looking at over 70% of the city area.

Yes, the minimum area for more than perfect, non-realistic solar conditions is 35%. But that's not a realistic number.
mccook8

Joined: Jun 01 2004
Posts: 744


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:01 pm

Another assumption is that energy CONSUMPTION will remain the same.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily PRACTICAL, just that it's POSSIBLE.

I'm not one of those Chicken Little, Global Warming, Peak Oil nutjobs who sees doomsday just around the corner, but there's no denying that oil (and all of its byproducts) isn't going to last forever. It'd be easier to make that transition before there's no choice in the matter.
mx107marlin

Joined: Aug 12 2007
Posts: 3095
Location: Fairborn, OH


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:46 pm

mccook8 wrote:
Another assumption is that energy CONSUMPTION will remain the same.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily PRACTICAL, just that it's POSSIBLE.

I'm not one of those Chicken Little, Global Warming, Peak Oil nutjobs who sees doomsday just around the corner, but there's no denying that oil (and all of its byproducts) isn't going to last forever. It'd be easier to make that transition before there's no choice in the matter.

You bring up an interesting point... if we wait until there is NO OIL to work with, there will be many products that the prices shoot through the roof.. Gas won't be practical for anything, but I mean things we use everyday made from petroleum. Non-synthetic motor oils, petroleum jellys.. I dunno off the top of my head, but there's a bunch of them out there.

We'll have to transition BEFORE it's too late...
Radioflyer

Joined: Sep 25 2007
Posts: 1563


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:32 pm

Antimatter FTW!!!
itzbjorn

Joined: Jul 21 2005
Posts: 2276
Location: MPLS Minnesota


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:14 pm

+1 on antimatter. I've got a batch in the oven as we speak.
jol102001

Joined: Feb 12 2004
Posts: 5815
Location: Lake Charles, LA -- USA


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:32 pm

mx107marlin wrote:
mccook8 wrote:
Another assumption is that energy CONSUMPTION will remain the same.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily PRACTICAL, just that it's POSSIBLE.

I'm not one of those Chicken Little, Global Warming, Peak Oil nutjobs who sees doomsday just around the corner, but there's no denying that oil (and all of its byproducts) isn't going to last forever. It'd be easier to make that transition before there's no choice in the matter.

You bring up an interesting point... if we wait until there is NO OIL to work with, there will be many products that the prices shoot through the roof.. Gas won't be practical for anything, but I mean things we use everyday made from petroleum. Non-synthetic motor oils, petroleum jellys.. I dunno off the top of my head, but there's a bunch of them out there.

We'll have to transition BEFORE it's too late...


I like how you worry us with this 'before it's too late' comment. We're not running out soon. They find new places that contain oil everyday and they are coming up with easier/more efficient ways of getting it. The price will go up with demand and because the oil is in more remote places.

In Canada they have a place that covers hundreds of square miles that has a sandy oil, but it's not worth it for any company to go there and process it.

People thought we were running out in the 70's. We're not running out in our lifetime.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:52 pm

Yes we have plenty we we keep having to exploit these areas to get oil and such and we are ruining any kind of harmony there and the wildlife suffers horribly. I don't know about you but i'm not an advocate of destroying everything just to have a little more fuel.

Alternative Fuels FTW!!!
lunasea

Joined: May 11 2007
Posts: 161
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ish...


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:33 am

its only impractical if you think of it as being the only solution. wind turbines are pretty efficient.
also are you going by just blue solar panels? or solar panels that are RGB that make 70% more output because they harness more of the specturm.

also i heard of a system that i think is still in the developing stages but you lay down a film of aluminium foil on your roof paint it with some special paint then lay like a mesh or something of wire and plumb it into your electrics.
An bobs your uncle.

Also think about it why are people wasting power and producing heat with fillament bulbs when the government could spend money on making *coughs* (I say making) I mean giving china a back hander so they make LED bulbs that could work off 110v in your home for all your lighting needs.

but no instead they would rather spend 190billion on the "war"
cause thats realy money well spent.
lunasea

Joined: May 11 2007
Posts: 161
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ish...


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:40 am

mx107marlin wrote:
mccook8 wrote:
Another assumption is that energy CONSUMPTION will remain the same.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily PRACTICAL, just that it's POSSIBLE.

I'm not one of those Chicken Little, Global Warming, Peak Oil nutjobs who sees doomsday just around the corner, but there's no denying that oil (and all of its byproducts) isn't going to last forever. It'd be easier to make that transition before there's no choice in the matter.

You bring up an interesting point... if we wait until there is NO OIL to work with, there will be many products that the prices shoot through the roof.. Gas won't be practical for anything, but I mean things we use everyday made from petroleum. Non-synthetic motor oils, petroleum jellys.. I dunno off the top of my head, but there's a bunch of them out there.

We'll have to transition BEFORE it's too late...


yea theres a bunch of them like all plastics most rubbers so thats your tyres and most of your car interior gone up in smoke allready!
lunasea

Joined: May 11 2007
Posts: 161
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ish...


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:57 am

this too is an option

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDWSW8BAM3U

the vid doesn't explain it greatly but those shiny panels reflect the sun into a glass tube filled with oil heating it up.
it then goes into a big coil of tubing inside a building which is filled with water heating the water making it into super heated steam and the steam drives turbines thus making power.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:40 am

robbie wrote:
Yes we have plenty we we keep having to exploit these areas to get oil and such and we are ruining any kind of harmony there and the wildlife suffers horribly. I don't know about you but i'm not an advocate of destroying everything just to have a little more fuel.


Get your facts straight before you start talking. I've been to an oil rig and my father used to work on an oil rig. The only damage that was done to wildlife was caribou being shot by grapefruit cannons by the workers. The media portrays oil rigs as these hug environmental issues but in reality when they are gone all they leave is a 2'x2' patch of gravel. While they are in place, there is wildlife all around.

lunasea wrote:
its only impractical if you think of it as being the only solution. wind turbines are pretty efficient.


This is where the original argument (where I work) came from. I do agree that in the south west (where they have a lot of sun and open space) solar energy might be the alternative. Here in the mid-west (where I live) I would say wind turbines would be the most practical alternative. One a coastal area (maybe Florida) harnessing power from waves might be the best alternative.

My original point was solar energy is not a practical solution as an alternative for the entire US. BTW, I keep very up to date on solar energy and technology, there is no solar cell that's 70% efficient that I've heard of.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:16 am

Hmm your right except it's not just oil rigs. So don't think i assumed one piece. We also have to take into consideration our **** job on the Alaskan pipeline. Which is leaking a good amount of **** into the environment. And then with the use of SOOO much over seas oil transport we have a big problem making it here ok. Old but the Exxon Valdez was one of the longest and most tiresome environmental issues that happened to us. Why because we depend on it to be transported. Like i said its not just oil rigs. Like you said they might be a leading cause. So get your facts straight and look into other causes outside of just one.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:35 am

EVERYTHING has environmental issues.

I will agree that transportation is problem but there are problems with any energy source. What happens when a huge wind turbine farm chops up a whole flock of birds that are migrating? What happens if so many wind turbine farms are built so the amount of wind in the US decreases (causing droughts in places)? What happens to the animals that are displaced from the area where a large solar array is built? What happens when a nuclear reactor blows up?

robbie wrote:
Yes we have plenty we we keep having to exploit these areas to get oil...


Don't try to backtrack in your argument. Never once did you say transportation is the problem. You said exploiting the areas to get oil. Yet in your next response (to my response) you start saying it's transportation that's the problem (Exxon Valdez/Alaskan Pipeline). As I see it now, your argument isn't on getting the oil, it's on transportation of the oil.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:00 am

Your right i did say that but i never said that the problem came from one specific thing. Exploiting an area could mean getting the oil and then getting it here. Like i said the pipeline, no its not a form of getting it but it is screwing up things up there. I brought up transportation because you said oil rigs specifically. There are plenty though. Anytime we drill anywhere on land anymore it mess stuff up. Crude oil is not biodegradable. This means any amount isn't good period. Transportation happens to be one of the biggest problems.

I totally agree with you about the effects on the wildlife because of solar panels. I am not a huge fan of solar power. Because i know unless its in small doses for small applications being directly effected its highly inefficient. Finding a solution right now that will 100% provide a solution to our problem isn't happening. What we can do is help to cut down on the amount of harmful things we do throw out there. Cutting down on the amount of drilling period and foreign oil transport and dependability we really need to look into alternative fuels. And as for our electricity i agree with you there too. Putting something to gather energy in an area where it belongs. Wind turbines where theres wind, solar panels where its a wide open lots of sun with little interference, and water/wave based on the coasts.
TRogers

Joined: Feb 09 2005
Posts: 6083
Location: Ohio


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:08 am

Let's change the world!

You can all sit here and bicker but nothing will change, so why waste the energy...get it! waste the energy. Hahaha, I made a funny.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:14 am

^^^^ Very true man which is why i am in college. Going to be a lobbyist WOOT!!!
TRogers

Joined: Feb 09 2005
Posts: 6083
Location: Ohio


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:59 am

I went to college. It's fun.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:31 am

It is fun i enjoy it very much. Got law school after my 4 years though.
alkatmsu

Joined: Nov 08 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: Kentucky


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:09 pm

robbie wrote:
Your right


YOU'RE
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:18 pm

Lol oh god here come the grammar *****.

you guys crack me up correcting grammar on a forum. If this was like a thesis i might worry about it.
alkatmsu

Joined: Nov 08 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: Kentucky


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:50 pm

Trying to make an intelligent discussion while repeatedly using blatantly incorrect words detracts from your credibility.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:53 pm

Yep sure does. Because on a message board when people are trading ideas the very first thing they look at is grammar. Sorry to be a **** man but it just seems a little bit nit picky to correct my grammar. I was having a discussion and not once did he say i lost credibility because of my spelling or such. I really don't want to come off bad but it just seems a little lame. Though a hobby might help this.
alkatmsu

Joined: Nov 08 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: Kentucky


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:54 pm

Just because someone doesn't say it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A simple error like that can completely derail a sentence to me. Plus, you made the same mistake several times, including in your sig. If it was just once I would ignore it.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:00 pm

alkatmsu wrote:
Trying to make an intelligent discussion while repeatedly using blatantly incorrect words detracts from your credibility.
robbie wrote:
Yep sure does. Because on a message board when people are trading ideas the very first thing they look at is grammar. Sorry to be a **** man but it just seems a little bit nit picky to correct my grammar. I was having a discussion and not once did he say i lost credibility because of my spelling or such. I really don't want to come off bad but it just seems a little lame. Though a hobby might help this.


To me having good/bad grammar doesn't contribute to credibility in a situation like this. What builds credibility in my eyes is when someone brings an opinion/argument to the table that's backed with facts and number instead of opinions.

Like my initial post where I gave the numbers and calculations, that's very good credibility. Saying.....
robbie wrote:
Yes we have plenty. We keep having to exploit these areas to get oil and such and we are ruining any kind of harmony there and the wildlife suffers horribly. I don't know about you but i'm not an advocate of destroying everything just to have a little more fuel.

builds no credibility. There are no facts or numbers in a statement like that, just someone's opinion. Someone's not going to change my view on something by telling me their opinion, they need facts.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:01 pm

Hmm ok i'm sorry i spelled it wrong or put the wrong one there. Didn't know i was dealing with an English professor. Cause i am not trying to start anything but continuing to explain to me a good reason why you corrected my grammar is really useless. so unless you go around the boards correcting every single posts bad grammar i don't think mine will be too big of an issue man.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:16 pm

your right facts are in order im sorry man. Got ahead of myself there. As far as my transportation stance the exxon valdez spilled approx 10. 8 million gallons of crude oil. This spill actually ranks down on the list of volume released. But when looked at closer it was spilled in a remote location accessible by helicopter severely hindering the efforts of cleanup. This habitat also housed salmon, otters, seals, and caribou. These are all very vital to the natives.

My biggest concern is actually drilling in artic regions. These regions hold very vital pieces of land and animals that the native people have depended on for a very long time. With drilling this would not be good on their ability to get what they need. About 2800 hundred otters and approx 250,000 sea birds have been hurt by oils spills alone among other various sea life. If we start to drill animals habitats will be upset. now why not drill in remote locations with very little wildlife. While it won't yield as much crude oil we could save the stuff up north for when we have exhausted all other resources, and have nothing left to turn to. And we don't know how much it will yield because there is ALOT of speculation to be had about how much is up there. Drilling would lead to lots of jobs. Jobs lead to the urbanization of the surrounding environment taking away from the land and places wildlife has to go.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:50 pm

Here's the deal on Alaska crude oil. It's estimated that in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) there is 10 billion barrels of crude. This is enough to supply the nation will all the needed oil for 18 months. Slice up the oil usage differently and this amount of oil could reduce the dependency on imported oil by 15% for 20 years (equivalent to reducing oil imports from the Middle East by 25%). This sounds like a good way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil that's possible right now w/out new technology. Not only would that reduce our dependency, it would also help control/prevent oil prices from increasing even further.

Oil Rig jobs don't lead to urbanization like you speculate. Look at Alaska's current oil rigs and you'll see what I'm saying (I'll use Prudhoe Bay as an example). Prudhoe Bay is the largest oil field in North America. It's located on Alaska's north slope. It first started production of removing oil in 1977 when the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was completed. The latest census of Alaska reveals that the population of the area is 5 people. That hardly seems like the urbanization you're trying to imply.

Robbie, I do give you props for actually going out and researching something when debating. If everyone in the US would do this there would be a lot more intelligent debates happening instead of the wonderful political debates that happen. icon_rolleyes.gif
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:02 pm

Thanks man i try to be informed on my interests. But there is still alot of speculation among many on how much oil is actually up there. But as i have read its no just oil rigs (as in ocean type) they are looking to do. I understood this project as something to occur on land as well. I don't know much about rigs and won't claim to but i thought land oil developments required more of a living near it then on it. Like i said i'm not sure. As far as dependency i think dependency would decrease with the rise in alternative fuels like E85 while still under heavy research and biodiesel.(sp)

With these drilling could be reduced and so could dependency. But the general population is still against this. I think a big push and a shift in vehicle make, and also a more involved government with the issue of oil could help led to a change in our views on how much we actually consume alone in the US.
PwrRngr

Joined: Jul 19 2007
Posts: 4407


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:10 pm

When I say oil rig I lump land and actual rigs together (yeah, technically incorrect but it's a bad habit). The one in Prudhoe Bay is on land. There are temporary living shelters erected for the works to stay while they are working. The workers usually earn one day off for every day they work. They go and work on the rig for 2 or 3 weeks and then have 2 or 3 weeks off. No one actually lives up there because there's nothing up there and the environment is too harsh.
robbie

Joined: Apr 23 2006
Posts: 5754


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:20 pm

Oh ok i don't know much about rigs but i appreciate you for helping to understand them. Can use it in my thing tommorow for class. Also like i said alternative fuels will save us.
jol102001

Joined: Feb 12 2004
Posts: 5815
Location: Lake Charles, LA -- USA


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:15 pm

Last night they had the lights out thing for an hour. Anyone participate?
mccook8

Joined: Jun 01 2004
Posts: 744


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:09 pm

jol102001 wrote:
Last night they had the lights out thing for an hour. Anyone participate?


According to assorted internet news sources, an estimated 30 million people were supposed to participate, worldwide.

(That's roughly one half of one percent of Earth's population, to keep things in perspective) icon_lol.gif
alkatmsu

Joined: Nov 08 2005
Posts: 1560
Location: Kentucky


Are you sure you want to delete this post?
  
Post Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:08 am

I was at work, and they would've gotten **** off if I went around turning out the lights.
The time now is Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:10 pm
Page 1 of 1