Shut the hell UP!!!

[shonky]

Main problem with all the renuable things is they just don't produce much power...and electricity can't be stored

Batteries?

no they store chemical energy and convert it into electrical energy

Stop talking shite. Not duracell, car batteries, mobile batteries etc. Charge off the mains so no reason they couldn't store charge from generators.

[badger]

capacitor anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor

[forensix (mcr)]

It's still elctrochemistry rather than the actual storage of electricity- you can charge them by putting the ions back in so they can produce more electricity they also have a habit of losing charge when not in use and the amount of electricity you can "store" is minimal

[*grand*]

Main problem with all the renuable things is they just don't produce much power...and electricity can't be stored

Batteries?

ok, obviously you can store small amounts chemically- but no where near enough for mains power- can't store mains power amounts of electricity efficiently.

its the challenge that they need to overcome.

[shonky]

capacitor anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor

Thanks Badger, my electrical knowledge was faltering there. To be honest, the rate we snap it up and the amount created by renewables, the need for electrical storage is fairly irrelevant.

[kidlogic]

Unfortunately, I think it would end up being controled by dictators with the way things work over there.

Its a brilliant idea though Shonx, but the irony is that environmentalists would be all over it for damaging the African Savannah's fragile ecosystem or some other such crap. Similar to how the environmentalists are protesting the wind farms here in SoCal because they are in a migritory lane for seasonal birds. I mean really, the birds will figure it out, and if we dont do something they're gonna die with the rest of us anyway.

Middle England wont allow them in some places because they are an "eye sore"- your gonna have fucking sore eyes from crying about not being able to fill up your Land Rover to take Timmy to choir practice soon

Main problem with all the renuable things is they just don't produce much power...and electricity can't be stored so you cant rely on the whims of the weather. And takes a shit load of energy to mine the materials needed and build a wind turbine or solar panels.

Nuclear seems the only sensible option to me.

The tide is pretty reliable, and in places like the San Bernadino Mts just outside of LA (and just inside the migratory path) where the wind blows at an almost constant rate it is pretty reliable too.

Also, part of the reason these renewable resources dont produce as much power as other forms is because the oil companies and other corporations who are in control right now are keeping the funding from these options for the same reasons as stated in earlier posts. If an honest full blown study on solar had gone into effect as soon as the concept came out instead of just now, theres no reason we couldnt have a solar panel that produced 100xs the most effecient panel we have right now.

There are whole homes in LA county that are solar powered, heat, electric and water. They only get small tax breaks though that done offset the cost of installing them, so no one is really interested due to the high cost of setup and maintenance.

If we can have an iPod that holds 160gB of information and flat panel TVs that are 200 inches across and an inch thick, there is no reason we shouldnt have solar panels that are more efficient than they are now. No reason other than the greed stated in earlier posts.

[shonky]

Main problem with all the renuable things is they just don't produce much power...and electricity can't be stored

Batteries?

no they store chemical energy and convert it into electrical energy

Stop talking shite. Not duracell, car batteries, mobile batteries etc. Charge off the mains so no reason they couldn't store charge from generators.

there are ways of storing potential electricity power, but it is inefficient for a mains power grid- you cant have a large % of intermittant power sources for the mains, have to have sources that can be turned up/down with demand.

Surely it would be possible for individual homes to have them though, might well be the size of a fridge or so, but not unfeasible perhaps. I thought this was how it worked with solar panelling and garden wind turbines, if not it looks like a clever idea for someone to look into (presumably someone with better knowledge of how electricity works than me )

[shonky]

capacitor anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor

Thanks Badger, my electrical knowledge was faltering there. To be honest, the rate we snap it up and the amount created by renewables, the need for electrical storage is fairly irrelevant.

...its not irellivant at all, it means that with current technology it is only viable to have a small % of renuables if they give intermittant power, because you cant stere mains power efficiently you have power sources that can be controlled to suite demand

Yeah, but we'd be using it alongside fossil fuel and nuclear energy production for the foreseeable future so there would be continuous energy supply with the intermittent power.

[kidlogic]

Batteries?

no they store chemical energy and convert it into electrical energy

Stop talking shite. Not duracell, car batteries, mobile batteries etc. Charge off the mains so no reason they couldn't store charge from generators.

there are ways of storing potential electricity power, but it is inefficient for a mains power grid- you cant have a large % of intermittant power sources for the mains, have to have sources that can be turned up/down with demand.

Surely it would be possible for individual homes to have them though, might well be the size of a fridge or so, but not unfeasible perhaps. I thought this was how it worked with solar panelling and garden wind turbines, if not it looks like a clever idea for someone to look into (presumably someone with better knowledge of how electricity works than me )

It would be, but the technology and research needed to make it feasable at the moment is being held up. It is possible, but not for everyone because the costs of install and maintenance are prohibitively high for most.

[forensix (mcr)]

Surely it would be possible for individual homes to have them though, might well be the size of a fridge or so, but not unfeasible perhaps. I thought this was how it worked with solar panelling and garden wind turbines, if not it looks like a clever idea for someone to look into (presumably someone with better knowledge of how electricity works than me )

this is possible - i thought you meant on a large scale- and I think it is done with large batteries - they just need to be more financially viable - as people don't want to fork out a few grand to buy solar panels

[kidlogic]

no they store chemical energy and convert it into electrical energy

Stop talking shite. Not duracell, car batteries, mobile batteries etc. Charge off the mains so no reason they couldn't store charge from generators.

there are ways of storing potential electricity power, but it is inefficient for a mains power grid- you cant have a large % of intermittant power sources for the mains, have to have sources that can be turned up/down with demand.

Surely it would be possible for individual homes to have them though, might well be the size of a fridge or so, but not unfeasible perhaps. I thought this was how it worked with solar panelling and garden wind turbines, if not it looks like a clever idea for someone to look into (presumably someone with better knowledge of how electricity works than me )

yeah, perhaps...but all of these things can have much more environmental impact than something like a well run nuclear power station, or a coal power station with carbon capture (or even without). there would be huge envoronmental damage to fit every home or section of a power grid with banks of batteries in order that renuable power can be relied on, it would be inneficient (batteries made of harmful and heavy materials that have to be mined, processed and transported often from the other side of the world)...would end up using more energy than it saves- which is the thing with half of these 'down the pub' type green ideas- usually look into things a bit more and they are no more efficient or carbon saving than traditional methods of power.

these things arn't just the cost for people, the things that seem green are often much worse when you consider the wider picture and whole life-cycle of things.

While I agree about the double-sidedness of most things 'green', this instance it has been proven to work. As I have said, in LA there are entirely self sufficient houses, but only the rich can afford them. Look up Ed Begly Jr. He's kindof a tool, but he's also probably one of the few people on the planet living a modern lifestyle and leaving virtually no trace. Electric car, solar heat and energy, composting, growing alot of his own food, etc. It can be done, you just have to be rich.

There are other ways of storing energy besides big wasteful and environmentaly unsound batteries too, Im just not fully up on all of them. Things like storing potential energy instead of actual energy, like running water through solar panels (which, in a city that gets over 300 days of sunlight a year, like LA and Denver, is pretty reliable) and using the hot water to heat and cool your house, and using the waters movement and the solar panels to generate more electricity.

It is possible.

[vonboyage]

Oh my god, im being educated.

[kins83]

At the point of construction, there are high costs in terms of finance and resourse, but in the long run, surely renewable energy sources are a much much better idea. I suppose it boils down to efficiency and effective life-span really, something which may be limiting the feasiblity of these technologies at the moment.

[shonky]

^^^^^^
yeah am sure it is possible, but has anyone looked into how much energy it took to produce those solar cells- how big a hole in the ground had to be dug, how much power in processing the materials?...likewise with the electric car and all of these other technologies. I think these things are all very well, but look into the whole cycle of things and they often are not as great for the environment as it seems.

To be honest, my old flatmate looked into a lot of environmental issues and she said a similar thing with regard to solar panels - think she said it would take about 30 years of use to actually compensate for the environmental damage they caused in their creation, by which time they'll probably need replacing anyway.

Seems that the only part of minimising carbon footprints that no-one really mentions is reducing consumption. There's been more government ads recently but it always being someone else's problem (business, government, other countries, your neighbours, etc). My carbon footprints quite low in some respects as I rarely fly, don't own a car, rarely use public transport if I can walk it, and don't have my heating on all year round. Being broke constantly also helps

[kidlogic]

^^^^^^
yeah am sure it is possible, but has anyone looked into how much energy it took to produce those solar cells- how big a hole in the ground had to be dug, how much power in processing the materials?...likewise with the electric car and all of these other technologies. I think these things are all very well, but look into the whole cycle of things and they often are not as great for the environment as it seems.

Yeah, but thats initial vs. overall, and I think thats a tradeoff thats worth it. Even if it is a great amount of energy to make solar panels (which would be less had we been studying the technology longer) its a one time deal, as opposed to continually drawing too much energy with other methods.

As for the electric car, since Saturn (car company in US) has a 0% waste production plant already it seems it would be possible to create a similar plant for the production of said electric car. I realize that the 0% thing is as much a marketing tool as it is an environmental measure, and it probably isnt truly 0%, but even at 10% or less its a vast improvment on other manufacturing techniques.

The cycle of things, as you put it, is based on the same methodology that got us into this mess in the first place, so of course if we continue to build and create in this same cycle it will tax the environment as much as it is now, but there are ways of reaching the same goal with less taxing methods. Solar, for example, doesnt always mean photovoltaic cells, it can be something as simple as a hollow panel painted black with pipes running through it to heat water, and that water can be used to heat a house, and your shower. The water can even be forced through the panels by the physics of the water heating, and the movement of the water can create electricity. Point being, looking at things with the current methodology and processes, yes, it would be just as harmful on the environment in many cases to do what Ed Begly has done, but he has gone to great lengths to ensure that the modifications he has made to his house and his life dont go against what he is trying to do in the long run.

I agree, most of the time 'green' doesnt necessarily mean better, but solar, wind and hydroelectric are viable sources of energy. The problem with them is the big oil companies are doing what they can in many ways to keep these technologies from seeming viable.