[quote]Actually solar power looks better than anything but fusion reactors. Right now energy panels are around 15% efficient for high grade ones. If we can develop around 80% efficient solar panels we would draw an insanely large amount of energy from them. Currently the highest scientists have been able to get is around 40%[/quote] That would take approximately 3000 years with our current economy implying that we are intending to use solar panels for majority of our electric generation, AND saying we use up all our funds on this project. Also you should consider that our atmosphere absorbs most of our sun's energy dry and clean of its original pumped up version of energy. Why do you suggest the worst possible solution to alternative energy we have? EDIT:: Also in addition that not every country in our world is highly sunny everyday. Some countries rain everyday, or are without much sunlights everyday. This is highly dependant on how sunny your area is. [quote]Fission/Fusion Reactors [b]seem entirely inefficient[/b]. Seeing all they use is the thermal energy generated by these reactions to make superheated steam to turn turbines which in turn makes electricity.[/quote] Where are you getting your information from? It makes money back really fast once it starts running at its full capacity. How do you call this 'inefficient'.

Quote

Actually solar power looks better than anything but fusion reactors. Right now energy panels are around 15% efficient for high grade ones. If we can develop around 80% efficient solar panels we would draw an insanely large amount of energy from them. Currently the highest scientists have been able to get is around 40%

That would take approximately 3000 years with our current economy implying that we are intending to use solar panels for majority of our electric generation, AND saying we use up all our funds on this project. Also you should consider that our atmosphere absorbs most of our sun's energy dry and clean of its original pumped up version of energy. Why do you suggest the worst possible solution to alternative energy we have?
EDIT:: Also in addition that not every country in our world is highly sunny everyday. Some countries rain everyday, or are without much sunlights everyday. This is highly dependant on how sunny your area is.

Quote

Fission/Fusion Reactors seem entirely inefficient. Seeing all they use is the thermal energy generated by these reactions to make superheated steam to turn turbines which in turn makes electricity.

Where are you getting your information from? It makes money back really fast once it starts running at its full capacity. How do you call this 'inefficient'.

Nuclear power is by far more practical for electrical generation, and if you are talking about anything but a thermal collector running a turbine, it is cleaner too.

Nuclear power is by far more practical for electrical generation, and if you are talking about anything but a thermal collector running a turbine, it is cleaner too.

[QUOTE]It is far more efficient than burning coal to make steam to run turbines to make electricity.[/QUOTE] That be true. You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you? Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance. In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.

Quote

It is far more efficient than burning coal to make steam to run turbines to make electricity.

That be true.

You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you?
Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance.
In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.

[quote=Akar][QUOTE]It is far more efficient than burning coal to make steam to run turbines to make electricity.[/QUOTE] That be true. You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you? Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance. In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.[/quote] This is wrong, for one, the turbines are run by steam, and about 1/3 of the thermal energy gets converted into electricity, the rest is lost to the coldsink(generally a cooling tower or lake), and air. The amount of energy lost after the energy is converted into electricity depends on the transmission voltage and distance. The maximum efficiency is defined by the maximum temperature of your heat source, and the minimum temperature of your coldsink.

Quote from Akar

Quote

It is far more efficient than burning coal to make steam to run turbines to make electricity.

That be true.

You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you?
Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance.
In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.

This is wrong, for one, the turbines are run by steam, and about 1/3 of the thermal energy gets converted into electricity, the rest is lost to the coldsink(generally a cooling tower or lake), and air. The amount of energy lost after the energy is converted into electricity depends on the transmission voltage and distance.

The maximum efficiency is defined by the maximum temperature of your heat source, and the minimum temperature of your coldsink.

also, a great deal more than 15% of the energy released gets converted to heat within the containment vessel, mainly because the EM and beta radiation does not get very far before it is absorbed and converted into heat.

also, a great deal more than 15% of the energy released gets converted to heat within the containment vessel, mainly because the EM and beta radiation does not get very far before it is absorbed and converted into heat.

[quote] You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you? Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance. In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.[/quote] And we also have a guy here who falsely leads us with wrong statistics and trying to say something already said a few posts ago with exaggeration. You could've just said about its efficiency percentages. edit: in addition to that, scientists wouldn't consider any technology with 0% energy efficiency.

Quote

You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you?
Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance.
In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.

And we also have a guy here who falsely leads us with wrong statistics and trying to say something already said a few posts ago with exaggeration. You could've just said about its efficiency percentages.
edit: in addition to that, scientists wouldn't consider any technology with 0% energy efficiency.

[quote=Akar]That be true. You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you? Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance. In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.[/quote] No offense Akar, but if something did have 0% efficiency, we would be unable to use any of the energy generated for our purposes.

Quote from Akar

That be true.

You didn't actually think that all of the nuclear reaction's energy was converted straight into electricity like solar panels do with light did you?
Lets say you have 100 units of energy from a nuclear reaction. Now only 15 units of that energy is thermal energy. However of course not all of that thermal energy is going to go into the water. Some of it will be lost when the thermal energy transfers from the reaction to the water, thus making super heated steam. So now you have 13 units of energy left in that water. The water than goes up and the FORCE of the water moving turns turbines, which since it is the force of the water, the energy in that water is totally lost and irrelevant, so now you have 0 units of energy left in that turbine. Now that turbine is spinning and makes electricity, and the force is eventually lost due to friction/air resistance.
In other words, your using 0% of all the energy from that explosion.

No offense Akar, but if something did have 0% efficiency, we would be unable to use any of the energy generated for our purposes.

1) We are not asexual 2) Population Explosion? Only in America. Take a look at Japan with their NEGATIVE GROWTH RATE (five hundred times more dangerous than an explosion) 3) China also, it is speculated, will be facing a negative growth rate at a dangerous rate, due to infanticide (especially female gendered babies, they go first), and an over-population of males. So I guess if you want to become a baby killer...sure. 4) The creation of Ethanol is very inefficient. First, corn shortages. Think of how much corn starch, for example, is used in syrups, candy, breads, and usually as a cheap substitute for most other consumed products needed to be thickened. Think of the average amount of corn consumed, including popcorn. Why would a farmer want to waste perfectly good, in demand crop, for a crude form of ethanol that uses more energy to create than how much the ethanol itself supplies? Well, you could subsidize the farmers, but in order for the government to get the money they will increase taxes. This decreases buyer power and confidence, causing us to go into a slight recession, which discourages even more. People start losing their jobs, and products become more expensive (because if no one is putting money into the products, who's going to pay for labor, or for resources? There will be a clear lack of capital)...its a downward spiral. 5) You're prolonging the inevitable by buying 'hybrid' products. BESIDES, do you know how much of an environmental hazard, and how expensive it is, to dispose of a hybrid car's battery? The only justified reason I see a hybrid, is in an SUV, just due to the base fuel efficiency being nonexistent. And you're car is made of plastic, guess how much of our valuable diminishing fossil fuel goes into that? And the rubber on cars! OH LORD! I will be dead before I am in a car made of anything but metal. 6) Also, as far as your Nitrogen illustration goes, my tank is 19 gallons, and my engine is 5 cylinder. Just wanted to throw that out there. Solar energy only would work in areas that would rarely if ever have an over cast. That's basically...Nevada. I have a few problems with Hydrogen I would like addressed. First, by stimulating extra water, wouldn't that cause the weather patterns to be completely messed up? The water's gotta evaporate somewhere. This could mess up anything from Hurricane patterns to crop seasons. Not to mention, it won't be very easy to phase in. You can't mix water and gas, and if the water is constantly evaporating off the street it will mix with fuel emissions (from older models, from people unable to buy new cars). 7) Will Steam engines work in the dead of winter in the middle of Chicago at all? It wouldn't matter if you can hit over 100 with it, either, as most driving I hope would be the speed limit. Honestly, the fastest I've gone is 85 mph. Most cars start to lose control at high speeds, and what is the 0-60 time? If it takes 20 seconds just to get fast enough to merge onto a highway, that become a serious danger. Not to mention, as with most of these other designs, in order to increase efficiency the car has to be very light, and thus not very safe. (hence the metal comment above.) 8) There's a fundamental problem with environmental headway, and that is developing countries. Something that typically hinders developing countries (such as several parts of Africa), is that other, larger countries, in order to progress their import/export power, will force technology onto these countries that have barely a sufficient monetary unit. Five times easier to deplete the resources and move on, since there is no one stepping in to say hold on, when no one in the country knows what's going on. Education on the matter in developing countries MUST improve before we can strive towards a green world, as, several countries are using 80s diesel trucks. 9) Aw what the hell! Of all the problems, you seem to have looked over Morimoto Disease...aka, Mercury Poisoning. Have you noticed, if you go fishing, that there might be signs telling you to eat no more than one fish a week? That's because mercury levels have increased to unsafe levels in natural bodies of level, due to improper waste disposal. This, is something I think everyone should look up.

1) We are not asexual
2) Population Explosion? Only in America. Take a look at Japan with their NEGATIVE GROWTH RATE (five hundred times more dangerous than an explosion)
3) China also, it is speculated, will be facing a negative growth rate at a dangerous rate, due to infanticide (especially female gendered babies, they go first), and an over-population of males. So I guess if you want to become a baby killer...sure.

4) The creation of Ethanol is very inefficient. First, corn shortages. Think of how much corn starch, for example, is used in syrups, candy, breads, and usually as a cheap substitute for most other consumed products needed to be thickened. Think of the average amount of corn consumed, including popcorn. Why would a farmer want to waste perfectly good, in demand crop, for a crude form of ethanol that uses more energy to create than how much the ethanol itself supplies? Well, you could subsidize the farmers, but in order for the government to get the money they will increase taxes. This decreases buyer power and confidence, causing us to go into a slight recession, which discourages even more. People start losing their jobs, and products become more expensive (because if no one is putting money into the products, who's going to pay for labor, or for resources? There will be a clear lack of capital)...its a downward spiral.
5) You're prolonging the inevitable by buying 'hybrid' products. BESIDES, do you know how much of an environmental hazard, and how expensive it is, to dispose of a hybrid car's battery? The only justified reason I see a hybrid, is in an SUV, just due to the base fuel efficiency being nonexistent. And you're car is made of plastic, guess how much of our valuable diminishing fossil fuel goes into that? And the rubber on cars! OH LORD! I will be dead before I am in a car made of anything but metal.
6) Also, as far as your Nitrogen illustration goes, my tank is 19 gallons, and my engine is 5 cylinder. Just wanted to throw that out there. Solar energy only would work in areas that would rarely if ever have an over cast. That's basically...Nevada. I have a few problems with Hydrogen I would like addressed. First, by stimulating extra water, wouldn't that cause the weather patterns to be completely messed up? The water's gotta evaporate somewhere. This could mess up anything from Hurricane patterns to crop seasons. Not to mention, it won't be very easy to phase in. You can't mix water and gas, and if the water is constantly evaporating off the street it will mix with fuel emissions (from older models, from people unable to buy new cars).
7) Will Steam engines work in the dead of winter in the middle of Chicago at all? It wouldn't matter if you can hit over 100 with it, either, as most driving I hope would be the speed limit. Honestly, the fastest I've gone is 85 mph. Most cars start to lose control at high speeds, and what is the 0-60 time? If it takes 20 seconds just to get fast enough to merge onto a highway, that become a serious danger. Not to mention, as with most of these other designs, in order to increase efficiency the car has to be very light, and thus not very safe. (hence the metal comment above.)

8) There's a fundamental problem with environmental headway, and that is developing countries. Something that typically hinders developing countries (such as several parts of Africa), is that other, larger countries, in order to progress their import/export power, will force technology onto these countries that have barely a sufficient monetary unit. Five times easier to deplete the resources and move on, since there is no one stepping in to say hold on, when no one in the country knows what's going on. Education on the matter in developing countries MUST improve before we can strive towards a green world, as, several countries are using 80s diesel trucks.

9) Aw what the hell! Of all the problems, you seem to have looked over Morimoto Disease...aka, Mercury Poisoning. Have you noticed, if you go fishing, that there might be signs telling you to eat no more than one fish a week? That's because mercury levels have increased to unsafe levels in natural bodies of level, due to improper waste disposal. This, is something I think everyone should look up.

The government should implement a two-child/two-parent policy. No 3 children families. It would help cut down the population drastically. However, there's the Chinese to consider.. what, 11 children/2 parents? None of these are really new, and I'm not naive enough to think that me cutting down on computer time would help anymuch. [QUOTE]We are not asexual[/QUOTE] Debatable, but irrelevant.

The government should implement a two-child/two-parent policy. No 3 children families. It would help cut down the population drastically. However, there's the Chinese to consider.. what, 11 children/2 parents?

None of these are really new, and I'm not naive enough to think that me cutting down on computer time would help anymuch.

Quote

We are not asexual

Debatable, but irrelevant.

There is no Global Warming. Give me proof that there is. so Far The Ocean Water has not rasied 1 centimeter. so please give me proof

There is no Global Warming. Give me proof that there is. so Far The Ocean Water has not rasied 1 centimeter. so please give me proof

[quote=Centreri] [QUOTE]We are not asexual[/QUOTE] Debatable, but irrelevant.[/quote] Entirely relevant. At either rate, if that's the only fallacy you found with my rant well then... I declare myself winnar.

Quote from Centreri

Quote

We are not asexual

Debatable, but irrelevant.

Entirely relevant. At either rate, if that's the only fallacy you found with my rant well then... I declare myself winnar.

[quote=Centreri]None of these are really new, and I'm not naive enough to think that me cutting down on computer time would help anymuch.[/quote] Hahaha, word.

Quote from Centreri

None of these are really new, and I'm not naive enough to think that me cutting down on computer time would help anymuch.

Hahaha, word.

Ozone: The problem isn't neccessarily that there's no ozone. It's just that Cl in the atmosphere is catalysing ozone's reaction with UV light, which would otherwise abosorb it considerably. Steam Engines: Sure, steam is fine. But you forget that a steam engine actually uses coal as its energy source. Steam is merely the method of converting that heat into kinetic energy. A steam engine is worse than a coal engine because of this. Ethanol: Someone mentioned food... Yup. That's a big problem. Our crops should be used for eating, not powering our cars. If this goes on too long, we may end up in a food crisis.

Ozone:
The problem isn't neccessarily that there's no ozone. It's just that Cl in the atmosphere is catalysing ozone's reaction with UV light, which would otherwise abosorb it considerably.

Steam Engines:
Sure, steam is fine. But you forget that a steam engine actually uses coal as its energy source. Steam is merely the method of converting that heat into kinetic energy. A steam engine is worse than a coal engine because of this.

Ethanol:
Someone mentioned food... Yup. That's a big problem. Our crops should be used for eating, not powering our cars. If this goes on too long, we may end up in a food crisis.

For food crisis, we just aren't using our lands efficiently enough. We just need to use a bit more intensive 'vertical farms' or 'Farmscrapers'. It could supply more food, all the while having lands back for forest regrowth. For example, we took 30 acres of land for building a farmscraper. 15 of which were used for equipments, walls, walkways, elevators. Let's say we built a 50 story building on that. Excluding the roof for sunlight panels for extra electricity, 15 x 50 = 750. Now who says there'll only be 1 layer of crops per floor? Using Aeroponics, we can stack them up like in a shelf of crops. ( Maybe except for corn, rice, and wheat. ) But even then, 750 acre for 30 acre is pretty good deal.

For food crisis, we just aren't using our lands efficiently enough. We just need to use a bit more intensive 'vertical farms' or 'Farmscrapers'. It could supply more food, all the while having lands back for forest regrowth.
For example, we took 30 acres of land for building a farmscraper. 15 of which were used for equipments, walls, walkways, elevators. Let's say we built a 50 story building on that. Excluding the roof for sunlight panels for extra electricity, 15 x 50 = 750.
Now who says there'll only be 1 layer of crops per floor? Using Aeroponics, we can stack them up like in a shelf of crops. ( Maybe except for corn, rice, and wheat. ) But even then, 750 acre for 30 acre is pretty good deal.

I am not so sure a vertical farm could be as efficient as a rooftop farm. a vertical farm would only get sunlight for half the hours a horizontal farm would, and it wouldn't get anywhere near the energy density(it is only going to be facing the sun in either early morning, evening, or during winter)

I am not so sure a vertical farm could be as efficient as a rooftop farm. a vertical farm would only get sunlight for half the hours a horizontal farm would, and it wouldn't get anywhere near the energy density(it is only going to be facing the sun in either early morning, evening, or during winter)

Actually, Ethanol is a very efficient source of fuel. No, not with corn. It is efficient with ALGAE. Read up about it, it looks very promising. Apparently, as algae and many other plants / bacteria have cellulose ( I believe that's it.. ) in them, algae can produce more than twenty times as much ethanol as the same amount of corn can, and algae doubles in two days. Look it up.

Actually, Ethanol is a very efficient source of fuel. No, not with corn. It is efficient with ALGAE. Read up about it, it looks very promising. Apparently, as algae and many other plants / bacteria have cellulose ( I believe that's it.. ) in them, algae can produce more than twenty times as much ethanol as the same amount of corn can, and algae doubles in two days.

Look it up.

Interesting point, Jamal. I overlooked that any plant can produce ethanol (right?). Algae makes much more sense, now the only problem is getting congress involved in any sort of reform. And its fault on both parties-- not just republicans or democrats.

Interesting point, Jamal. I overlooked that any plant can produce ethanol (right?). Algae makes much more sense, now the only problem is getting congress involved in any sort of reform. And its fault on both parties-- not just republicans or democrats.

[quote=JamaL]Actually, Ethanol is a very efficient source of fuel. No, not with corn. It is efficient with ALGAE. Read up about it, it looks very promising. Apparently, as algae and many other plants / bacteria have cellulose ( I believe that's it.. ) in them, algae can produce more than twenty times as much ethanol as the same amount of corn can, and algae doubles in two days. Look it up.[/quote] The problem is we don't exactly farm algae already, and it's important to the natural ecosystem. To begin viably producing ethanol from it as fuel we'd need to set up an entire algae farm infrastructure.

Quote from JamaL

Actually, Ethanol is a very efficient source of fuel. No, not with corn. It is efficient with ALGAE. Read up about it, it looks very promising. Apparently, as algae and many other plants / bacteria have cellulose ( I believe that's it.. ) in them, algae can produce more than twenty times as much ethanol as the same amount of corn can, and algae doubles in two days.

Look it up.

The problem is we don't exactly farm algae already, and it's important to the natural ecosystem. To begin viably producing ethanol from it as fuel we'd need to set up an entire algae farm infrastructure.

[quote]I am not so sure a vertical farm could be as efficient as a rooftop farm. a vertical farm would only get sunlight for half the hours a horizontal farm would, and it wouldn't get anywhere near the energy density(it is only going to be facing the sun in either early morning, evening, or during winter)[/quote] The rooftop has a solar cell panel so it can absorb sunlight and distribute electricity to light the indoors. Plants can react to any kind of visible light as long as they have enough concentration. Also, the byproducts of the farm can also be recycled much easier, and getting electricity supplies from outside generators, it could probably power 50 high powered lights.

Quote

I am not so sure a vertical farm could be as efficient as a rooftop farm. a vertical farm would only get sunlight for half the hours a horizontal farm would, and it wouldn't get anywhere near the energy density(it is only going to be facing the sun in either early morning, evening, or during winter)

The rooftop has a solar cell panel so it can absorb sunlight and distribute electricity to light the indoors. Plants can react to any kind of visible light as long as they have enough concentration.
Also, the byproducts of the farm can also be recycled much easier, and getting electricity supplies from outside generators, it could probably power 50 high powered lights.

Well, think of it this way Syphon. If we produce exactly what we need and nothing more (assuming that algae reproduces at an exact rate, it should be relatively effortless, given how anal most scientists are, to track and calculate), and keep a quantity in reserve, than it shouldn't harm any natural ecosystem, as what is creating and feeding it would be humans, and we'd control all exterior variables.

Well, think of it this way Syphon. If we produce exactly what we need and nothing more (assuming that algae reproduces at an exact rate, it should be relatively effortless, given how anal most scientists are, to track and calculate), and keep a quantity in reserve, than it shouldn't harm any natural ecosystem, as what is creating and feeding it would be humans, and we'd control all exterior variables.