 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Alternative energy sources
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:47 AM Conversion of PV power is well under 10%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM The ring around the Earth need not be in geosynchronous orbit. It would not need to rotate at all, but it would then be unstable and one side would fall down. A gentle spin would be all that was needed to keep it up, but how would you draw energy from it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 25 Nov 05 - 05:20 AM Solar power, we could, DB. Sadly or fortunately just about two tenths of a trillionth of the Sun's power actually reaches the Earth, but it's still about 1.4kW/square metre at the equator on a fine day. Say 0.8kW/sqm at UK's latitude. But of course, most of it is absorbed by the clouds, dust in the atmosphere etc. etc. Say we typically get a tenth of that, 80W/sqm. If we can get 100% conversion that's only 500 metres square for 20MW. But conversion is much lower, figures anyone? We do really need some good, efficient |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,DB Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM We're only about 8 light minutes from a wacking great star that's been pumping out zillions of kilowatts for billions of years. I'm sure that, if we really wanted to, we could harness a bit more of that for our own use (?) Actually, I think we're going to be the first species to bring about our own extinction and we're locked onto that course, come what may. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM "Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour." Well, kW doesn't have time in it (a watt is a joule per second), but you can't do that rate unless you're Superman. Lance Armstrong can do about 600W (0.6kW), but only for short periods. Real people can do 60-100W continuously. Yes, people should bike to get fit, but better do it commuting than on an exercise bike. I only wish my route to work wasn't 3 miles of hills (1 in 7 down, 1 in 8 up and 1 in 8 down coming, and the reverse going) with extreme HGV traffic all the way for company. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: rumanci Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM Gear we go again ! but we'd better tread softly or somebody will punch our lights out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM Well spoke, sir. Obviously we are building a strong chain here; let us hope it does not brake, and that Joe does not condemn us to having our handlesbarred. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM I think that joke is wheely bad... :D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:20 AM Yeah, but there's a risk he'd get tyred out... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: rumanci Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM Heck ! Dave (tG) You ought to pedal your wares You make a great spokesman ! rum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour. Now then, assuming that 1/2 the population of the UK are fit enough to do it we could make using a static cycle for an hour a day compulsory. 30 million people = 15 million killowats! How much would that help? Not just that - Think of the fitness benefits and the saving to the health service. We could also make it so that people who do more than an hour get cheaper electricity - therby helping the unemployed;-) Those that can't do it need a doctors note. those that won't do it are charged more for their power! Eeeeeh, why won't anyone give me a job in government... :D (tG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:01 PM I read it and it sounds hopeful. I wish these guys had a grip on funding. At present their hard results look fine but are limited, and their hopeful projections are the very kind that make jaded investment people nervous. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM During the Eighties I worked as a technical writer for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. The firm I worked for conducted inspections of houses that had been weatherized under a BPA energy conservation program. My job was to take a tall stack of inspector's reports on individual residences and boil it down to a six page report. If all was in order, BPA would cut a check to pay for the weatherization. This whole thing came about when the Department of Energy commissioned the BPA and similar organization around the country to find new and inexpensive sources of electrical energy. After much scientific input, agonizing surveys, analysis, meetings, cussing and discussing, and more analysis, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to an inescapable conclusion: the least expensive source of new energy was to eliminate waste. That dreaded word: conservation. Once they started funding their residential weatherization program and some savings figures came in, the Washington State government started an "Oil Help" program, similarly funding weatherization of residences that heated with oil. I worked on that program, too. At least around here, the idea caught on. Seattle City Light is now supplying its customers with low wattage bulbs. We use them and they're fine. Just as bright and they last a lot longer than regular incandescent bulbs. Conservation won't solve all the problems, but it will certainly help, and it's just an intelligent thing to do. Trade your SUV in on a hybrid car. Take the bus. Better still, get a bicycle. Go turn something off. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:41 PM Thanks, Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM Yes, I had a look at it. It appears to be real science, no magic or wishful thinking involved. The problems of creating and controlling the plasma seem to be formidable, but perhaps it's not much harder than a fission reactor. It hasn't actually worked yet, but looks to be a relatively easily examined option compared to either fission or the large- scale fusion that has been tried, and has failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM LOL, DtG. Just out of curiosity, has anybody read the contents of the link I posted? I'd be interested to know what other people think about the idea of focused fusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bunnahabhain Date: 23 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM Peter, the problem with the calcium scrubbers to get rid of CO2 is simple, you need to get the calcium from somewhere. The only significant form calcium is found in is as calcium cabonate, ie limestone. The reaction is below. Limestone (CaCO3) + Heat --> Carbon dioxide (CO2) + Lime (CaO) To make the lime, you have to first release the CO2 you can absorb with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:15 AM Well, Carol, it is slightly tongue in cheek but who knows what will come of it:-) The silliest ideas sometimes turn out to be best. Let us call it a think tank and see if we can get government funding... Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:52 AM Britain could produce about a dozen nuclear powerstationsworths of electricity by building the Severn barrage, and more still with tidal barrages across other estuaries. However, that would wipe out a vast area of intertidal zone that is the habitat of many of Europe's wading birds. I suppose a 30km Straits of Dover barrage would produce still more, but annoy all northern Europe's shipping. But a Mull of Kintyre barrage, now there's a thought- a 20km road/ rail bridge to Ireland included. Or even a dual Kintyre/ Galloway barrage. However, Scotland having provided all the oil for the 80s and 90s, they might baulk at providing England with power for all time, and there might be a secession creating a Scotland/ Northern Irish/ Republic state, energy rich but leaving England in the lurch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: bobad Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM Elbow grease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: GUEST,petr Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM Im always interested in alternative energy.. agreed with above, the best way to save energy is conservation.. however there are more gadgets every year.. re cars: I think there was a French car that works on compressed air.. It came out last year, dont know what happened to it. there are hybrid plug-in electric cars right now, which essentially are converted hybrids with added lithium/ion battery banks (drawbacks are it increases weight by 170lbs, and invalidates your warranty on the other hand it can be plugged in and is sufficient for about 30km before kicking into gas engine mode) this would be an average daily commute so you could get quite a lot of mileage out of a tank of gas.. (of course it does require re-charging and uses electricity which still needs to be accounted for but typically that would be at offpeak hours) Solar energy using mirrors focused on a sterling engine. (Sterling Energy in California recently won a contract to supply electricity - check out www.stirlingenergy.com) apparently it is still the most efficient solar system - of course there are drawbacks too, wind hail damage etc. but supposedly a 100square miles of their solar collectors would be enough to supply the total US electrical supply -- quoted in Business Week article) Recently Popular Mechanics had a few articles about alternative renewable energy-- and some good ideas were generating electricity from (chemical reaction with wasteprocessing plants) thus getting rid of poop and making energy - albeit it was a small amount - but enough to power a waste processing plant one day. or small wind generators - even where wind is not high (average 11km per hour - but using a 5ft diam. windmill, which if the wind isnt high enough speed to recharge the batteries will store the charge as in a capacitor until there is enough to charge.. of course geothermal heat pumps.. using tidal power (floating grid of buoys using the up and down movement to induce electricity) or tidal power in narrows, under water etc.. there is even a design for huge screens which would scrub c02 by having react with calcium and thus neutralizing it.. (i dont know why this cant be done on asmaller scale and simply attach it to car exhausts.. but Im not an engineer.) cheers Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Ebbie Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM I remember a time, Bert, when there were popular phrases like the 'limitless oceans'. Wherever did those days go? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bert Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:59 PM It was a joke really but I'll continue the argument just for fun. Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much. That's what they said when they first started dumping sewage in the oceans. It won't pollute them very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM Kaleea: Well, what did he say? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Kaleea Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:44 PM Way back in the early 80's, in the heart of Oklahoma oil country, my brother (actively anti nuke) wrote an article about 10 exhisting power sources NOT fossil fuels. Our uncles who were still hanging on in the independent oil biz were impressed. p.s. It did not include anything about hamsters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: greg stephens Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much. I personally favour just using less power, which is another way of looking at the problem. Turn your heating down a notch, put an extra jumper on. Insulate your house. Dont drive around so much. Dont eat foetal peas flown in from outer Gombolia. All that obvious stuff. But wind-up cars is obviously a usefuk thing to look into, possibly with the assistance of Sir JOhn from Hull's hamsters and asylum New Seekers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:44 PM Bert: I seriously doubt that the use of wind-power would have any impact on the rotational velocity of the earth. You're talking about very different orders of magnitude of mass, for one thing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM You've got a point, Bert. I hadn't thought of that! Scratch the funnel! I've heard somr fairly wild ideas from time to time for using tidal power, Amos, but I'm curious. What did you have in mind? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:24 PM It never ceases to amaze me how far-flung some people think you need to go. We have this humongous pumping system in place and operational, involving a gravitic mass of significant value in a geostationary orbit such that it displaces trillions of cubic feet of saltwater by a distance of from 1 to 10 feet over 700 times per year. If you can get some valid numbers for the actual number of cubic feet displaced you can do the math yourself. How come we are so slow at using this built-in pumping system? We've been using Niagara Falls for almost 100 years now for power; it's worked out quite well overall. Two others sources worth considering are clean fuel distilled from coal and (of course) hydrogen. Both require major infrastructures (the coal solution less os) but both are feasible. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Bert Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:22 PM Your funnel idea has one drawback Don, how would you get rid of the smell of all that shit. If the use of windpower became widespread, would it slow down the rotation of the earth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Don Firth Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM I'm sorta curious about that, too, Carol. But whatever. Anyway, here goes: Two I can think of, off-hand. I once read an article about the possibilities of placing large turbines underwater in the various currents around the earth, such as the Gulf Stream, to provide electricity. This would be the same principle as wind power. As far as I know, nothing has ever been done along that line. Main objection (similar to objection to wind farms re: migrating birds) is that it might interfere with whales and fish migration, but with a little ingenuity, this could certainly be dealt with. Another is a system that would work especially well on the moon, to provide electrical power for a moon base, but it would also work effectively in desert areas on earth. It's based on the fact that ground will absorb the sun's heat during the day, and radiate it at night. A system of pipes containing a fluid is buried in a large patch of ground (it could by acres or square miles, depending). Then, a large sheet of insulating material set on rails, covering half the area containing the pipes. During the day, the patch of ground beneath the sheet is shielded from the sun, so it grows cooler. At night, the sheet is rolled (the purpose of the rails) over the adjacent half containing the pipes. The following day, the sheet is returned to its original position, and so on, alternating day and night. The result of this is that the patch that is covered during the day grows colder while the patch with is covered at night (preventing it from radiating its heat away) grows hotter. This causes the fluid in the pipes to circulate like crazy, and it can by used to drive turbines. After the system is installed, the cost of maintenance would be minimal. [Maybe I should keep this idea, come up with while figuring out some details for a science fiction story I never got around to writing, a deep, dark secret. I am reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's brief article entitled "How I Lost a Million Dollars in my Spare Time," in which he describes how some years before, he wrote an article about how three satellites set in geosynchronous orbit could provide communications links to the entire world. He didn't patent the idea because he didn't think it would happen for another century or so. Shortly thereafter, the first Telestar was launched. But wotthehell, I'm a generous guy. I'll give it to the world for nothing.] But seriously, folks, I advocate that we place a large funnel over the Capitol Building in Washington, D. C. (the White House as well, and perhaps over state capitol buildings and city halls) to capture the vast quantities of hot air and pipe it throughout the country to provide heat for residential housing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM Oops. Is this a taking the piss thread? Maybe I should start one of my own then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM Very good timing for starting this thread, DtG. I've been thinking about starting one to see what people think about this site I found... http://www.focusfusion.org/what/whatis.html The basic premise: focus fusion uses hydrogen-boron fuel, which its researchers say does not leave any kind of radio-active residue (unlike the other kind of fuels being researched today) and the source of heat is what they call a "plasma focus device". They say it's too early in their research to determine whether or not this method produces more fuel than it uses, but they say that the models they've been using suggest that it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM Yay - Good man yerself, Paul. Keep 'em coming... What about all the energy wasted by the hot air on Mudcat;-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Paul Burke Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM (1) Fission works with elements downwards towards iron. Fusion works with elements going upwards. That's to say, to re- fuse a product of a fission reaction takes all the energy you got out back again. (2) Do you know how far away the geostationary orbit is? It's about 22000 miles (the Earth's radius is about 4000 miles). (3) This must be a wind-up. Use bikes and get fit. Walk. Don't travel so much unnecessarily. Live near where you work and the shops. Insulate the house. Don't have so many kids. Burn the lawyers. (4) Unobtanium dilithide is better. (5) Hope cold fusion works. (6) Methane from poo. This may be a form of perpetual motion. (7) geothermal power (what happened to that?) (8) There must be a lot of power wasted when a region of meteorological high or low pressure passes over. If only we could convert that to motion, like a gigantic Newcomen engine... (9) Find a way of extracting power from stupidity, it's an infinite resource. |
|
Subject: BS: Alternative energy sources From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM I'm sure we have been here before but looking at the thread on nuclear power reminded me to get everyone looking again. I am looking for REAL alternaives here, not yer namby-pamby nuclear, wave or wind poweres:-) I'll start 1. Nuclear fusion followed by fission, followed by fusion, followed by... It never runs out if you do it like that and there is no waste:-) 2. A giant rail running the earth in a geo-stationary position that is attched to huge bicycle type dynamos... 3. A bit nearer home - Cars. Use clockwork. Have wind-up stations in place of petrol stations. Employ people to do the winding or use cheap slave labour from the criminal fraternity;-) 4. Dilithium crystlas. Any more? Cheers DtG |
