Can I have one please? It would do wonders for my electrical bill.
Mind you they would need to move it about 20 miles to keep from building it on a fault line (we have a lot of those).
Grumble Grumble Grumble
Actually, I have one several cities over. It's sitting on a faultline that extends into Lake Erie. All of the power either goes to Michigan or Canada, from what a few people that work there tell me. The City of Ashtabula has no warning sirens, but it's still in the path should the thing go. Laws just don't mandate sirens that far away. So I would say that because of the risks so far, I don't foresee nuclear plants to be a reliable alternative energy source.
Has anyone looked into Solar Power Satellites?
Solar power satellite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, the wourld really could have a large orbiting array or solar collecters, much like Gundam 00. and there doesnt even need to have a way of transferring the power to the ground through a physical means- they can "beam" it down. however, the drawbacks include a substantial rectenna on the ground (about 1km across, if i remember correctly) and the immense cost of sending the materials to orbit. therefore, unless we can find a better way to build it, it wont really be practical. also, there are other small matters, like protecting them from space junk and matenince.
However, if it where to become a reality, there would be plenty of power for everyone on the earth, and your power bill you be nigh existant! whats more, if an orbatal elevator was constructed, people could ride up into space on a regular basis. just think of attending a meeting at an altitude at which you can clearly see the curvature of the earth- cool, huh?
of course, the problem with a big thing like a solar elevator is the possiblilty of a terrorist attack. but they would probably be slitting their own throats, especially if that was the only means of power for the globe.
all in all, if they worked out several bugs, its a very cheap and efficent way of getting energy. however, for now, it isnt very practical. give Humanity 50 years, and i wouldnt be suprised.
Last edited by Ochi Gate; May 07, 2008 at 09:16 AM. Reason: typo
"You will only have eyes for Me!"
Grumble Grumble Grumble
And another field that has yet to be mentioned is good old fashion ENERGY CONSERVATION, as a gallon of gas saved is the same as a gallon of gas extracted from a natural resource...
Leadfoot drivers mull slowdown to cut gas cost - CNN.com
Mix of gas and hybrid cars to slash fossil fuel use: MIT study | Green Tech - CNET News.com
At the moment, I believe that biofuels made from cellulose sources such as switch grass, poplar trees, or forest and agricultural residues such as woodchips or corn stover is the best way to go.
One reason that I like the idea of a cellulose-based fuel is that there are so many sources you can get it from. We wouldn’t be dependent on just one source but have a variety of sources to choose from.
I also read an article that was provided by the ESA (Ecological Society of America) that mentioned a study made by a group of scientists. They were studying the greenhouse emissions of bioethanol of corn, hybrid poplar, switchgrass, and other optional fuel sources. Gasoline and diesel fuel acted as the control. They also determined the energy output for each option.
When compared to gas and diesel fuel, ethanol and biodiesel made by corn and soybeans reduced greenhouse emissions by nearly 40%, reed canary grass by 85%. Greenhouse emissions were reduced by 115% for switchgrass and hybrid poplar. Both switchgrass and hybrid poplar offset the largest amounts of fossil fuels reduced emissions compared to the other biofuel crops and offset two times as much fossil fuels if they are used for electricity generation via biomass gasification.
This option can be used in regular car engines and also does not incur the 30% gas mileage penalty that would come along with corn-based ethanol. In theory, it also takes a lot less energy to produce when compared to corn-based ethanol so it would be cheaper to produce as well.
Here are my sources:
Biofuels: Not Just Ethanol - this article was posted on sciencecodex.com but originally came from ESA.
Money Doesn’t Grow On Trees but Gasoline Might – this came from Science Codex as well but did not state an original source
I agree with LenMiyata about cutting down on fuel consumption. I've seen alot of people around here get in their cars just to go around the block to one of the fast food places or Rite Aid. And that's in really good weather. I personally walk if I have to go that short of distance. Then again, I tend to walk most places.
I also think we need to look into magnetic power. Especially for trains. And build more monorails, there aren't any here, for public transportation. The initial cost would be high, but in the long run, wed be saving both energy and money, especially if we're using alternative sources.
Yup... it is said that, to move a person in a car... only 7% of the fuel is used.. o.O where did the other 93% went to?
20% Is been evaporated in the air... or when you put your car in the garage.. :/
another 70% more... well to move the car of coarse,.. the car's weight uses a lot of energy just to move it.. thus more fuel needed... we are actually wasting lots of energy just by driving the car and releasing hazardous gasses like carbon monoxyde...
Ocean Accidification... have anyone heard of that? I just watched another documentary a few hours ago.. and i learn that the sea is turning into acid... @.@ slowly because of carbon dioxyde emmission.. :/ Cars, factories... you name it... planktons going to die out because of this.. and so is other many variety aquamarine creatures.. loads of them :/
Legion Ketsueki Lives on~!!
I'm BACK AO!