Solar farming

[keesfani]

just give scientists who work on nuclear fusion tons of doe. it is by far the most efficient way to generate power and doesn't produce any radioactive waste

[Ad Bot]

[Ceist]

just give scientists who work on nuclear fusion tons of doe. it is by far the most efficient way to generate power and doesn't produce any radioactive waste

efficient ecologically sure. energy wise not so much.

[SWAT One]

Or they could fire an energy beam to travel to satellites, retransmit it to other satellites until it lands at a receiver.  In the long term, would this be cheaper than barges?

In case you're wondering this is no newfangled stuff.

[Jubel]

energy wise not so much.

what the heck are you talking about fusion would give off way more energy than we could ever hope fission to give us.

[Ceist]

what the heck are you talking about fusion would give off way more energy than we could ever hope fission to give us.

dunno what you've read but humans haven't created a stable fusion reactor that's given off more energy than whats been required to create it.

[Otis Da HousKat]

theres nothing to improve in solar technology because the raw amount of energy that reaches Earth's surface from the sun is very small compared to what fossil fuels can give, and that itself is very small compared to what nuke energy can give

not to mention solar power is completely circumstantial in its operation due to weather conditions. so half the time there isnt even any energy to really collect.

So I guess all the researchers studying improving photovoltaic cells are just wasting their time? The amount of raw energy that just the Earth receives from the sun in a small time frame is more than we will ever produce with all our current fuel resources. Everything on the Earth came from the formation of the sun and there is no way the entirety of the planet's mass could produce more energy than the sun.

That said harnessing that energy in a usable and storable form is the problem obviously, not the amount of energy that the sun produces as you said. Solar energy production isn't viable on a massive scale but it does have use in smaller scale situations and especially in small portable applications.

I studied geothermal power plants a fair bit for a design course a few years ago. They're a very neat concept and much like solar energy are just harnessing heat that is being produced by celestial bodies anyway and can actually produce a good amount of reliable power.

Nuclear fission while more efficient than most other production sources isn't going to see adoption and in fact has been seeing a cut back in use especially after Fukushima. If I recall Germany which had a sizable amount of its power from nuclear decided to close down plants because of the incident and subsequent public fears. It's stupid but so are a lot of people and politicians are pandering to them.

dunno what you've read but humans haven't created a stable fusion reactor that's given off more energy than whats been required to create it.

Well no stuff derp. That's why people are actively researching it and trying to improve it so it is a viable solution.

[Ceist]

Well no stuff derp. That's why people are actively researching it and trying to improve it so it is a viable solution.

i'm aware of this.

[$trinick]

People are scared of a nuclear meltdown, and a majority of people are willing to shoot down the idea with past incidents

These incidents are exactly why regulations exist. Fukushima only happened because quite literally millions of pounds of water water cannoned the stuff out of the structure and essentially destroyed everything, and even so it was stopped at a partial meltdown.

[Ceist]

These incidents are exactly why regulations exist. Fukushima only happened because quite literally millions of pounds of water water cannoned the stuff out of the structure and essentially destroyed everything, and even so it was stopped at a partial meltdown.

People don't care.

Example counter-argument:
Fukushima was also based off the coast of the island. Building a nuclear power plant not near an ocean, say, about 50-75 miles from the coast, then a independent water source is needed or a large pipeline will need to be built cool it off in case of a meltdown. Regulations exist sure but there's also other problems. What if equipment malfunctions or pieces of material that sustains the plant fail? What about natural disasters?

While these all can be easily fixed/avoided, and the cost-effectiveness would be so huge that financing the construction of such a structure wouldn't be an issue, environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists would go out of their way to prohibit the construction. The west coast is a good example of somewhat hazardous place for construction of nuclear power-plants. Volcanic activity to earthquakes could result in some unwanted after affects if a nuclear plant is built near geographically active places.

[Harm94]

Did you know California was hit by radioactive fallout from Fukishima? Did you also know since then that people have had thyroid problems?

[$trinick]

Did you know that since before then, people had thyroid problems too? Did you know that the amount of radiation that reached California was nowhere near toxic levels?

[Ceist]

Did you know that since before then, people had thyroid problems too? Did you know that the amount of radiation that reached California was nowhere near toxic levels?

Either way he has a point. The pacific ocean is pretty loving large, 5355 miles long from Japan to California. If the fallout can reach from there to California, think of a full-scale meltdown, like Chernobyl, only today where the energy requirements are larger so therefore more radioactive materials being used. The fallout would be devastating. I'm a supporter of nuclear energy but I still try to look at both sides from a logical perspective. Nuclear power does have a severe cost if a failure occurs.

[Harm94]

Did you know that since before then, people had thyroid problems too? Did you know that the amount of radiation that reached California was nowhere near toxic levels?

Yes I am aware that was near background levels, but... explain the recent increase? Was it the particles themselves or is just the ever growing cloud of pollution that all Californians are similar with or a combination of both?

[Planr]

So I guess all the researchers studying improving photovoltaic cells are just wasting their time?

yes.

The amount of raw energy that just the Earth receives from the sun in a small time frame is more than we will ever produce with all our current fuel resources.

if we define a "small time frame" as one day, then no. you are absolutely wrong. using solar energy to power stuff is like trying to power things with a flashlight. not to mention the earth's atmosphere plus cloud coverage absorbs a great deal of the sun's light before it can reach the surface. the amount of energy you can get in a day from mining coal is much greater than the amount of energy you can get in a day of "solar farming" from even a mile-wide solar panel farm

Everything on the Earth came from the formation of the sun

i see who has been indoctrinated with atheistic religion from their high school science textbooks

there is no way the entirety of the planet's mass could produce more energy than the sun.

it is every day. the energy that reaches earth from the sun in a day that can be harnessed is far smaller in amount than what we extract each day from nuclear power

[Doomonkey]

At an average of 1367 watts per square meter on Earth, with 12 hour average days. A 100km by 100km area could produce 59.87 PWh of energy in a year. More than double the total US energy consumption in 2006.