Mining Engineering. (1 Viewer)

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
NonExistant said:
Solarpanels take alot of energy to create, as well as need materials to be made, many of which need to be mined...

Additionally, they can wreck the eco systems in whatever location they are installed.
They don't pollute anywhere as much as fossil fuels (including nuclear), and unlike the fossil fuels, the production process is actively being refined. :)

Oil refineries, coal mines and nuclear power stations can also do this, though I'd imagine to a greater degree than solar.

Really, redundant statements.
 

NonExistant

Don't read this sentance.
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
71
Location
A Rubber Band Factory
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Slide Rule said:
They don't pollute anywhere as much as fossil fuels (including nuclear), and unlike the fossil fuels, the production process is actively being refined. :)

Oil refineries, coal mines and nuclear power stations can also do this, though I'd imagine to a greater degree than solar.

Really, redundant statements.
You'll notice they were only in response to the foolish statement that they don't cause any damage to the enviroment, there were no comparisons to other energy methods.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I dunno, maybe I'm going a little overboard but I'm just picturing hectares upon hectares of solar panels... surely this would hurt the ecosystem of something (given that they'd have to be built fairly close to homes).

I do however think, that on top of nuclear energy it should be mandatory for each home to have a solar panel (just for basic heating etc).
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Gavrillo said:
Whilst I not say it's easy, it's possible to sabotage one. If you drop a fair ammount of explosive down a pyre, or sneak a bomb in...boom.



My biff with protecting power plants was protecting places from nuclear explosions and the subsequent ejection of nuclear particles into high-altitude trade-winds. There's no danger of a massive explosion from solar panels :p.



Given that most modern nuclear waste has a half life of over 5000 years, that their glass-lined steel barrels give out after 50 years and that nuclear bi-product is deemed capable of dissolving rock; if you put enough of it into the ground and give it long enough then think of the environmental dangers of nuclear bi-product 'melting' holes in the crust or seeping into the mantle.

There's no danger of solar panels damaging the environment...
Oh noes! Not the mantle! Heaven forbid if a little bit of nuclear waste got dissolved in 901950000000000 Litres of fluid where nothing lives, under an area of land thousands of kilometres away from anywhere with a remote amount of volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions might actually kill people!

In all seriousness, where is your point?
 

Courtenay

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
351
Location
THE Hill
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Calculon said:
Oh noes! Not the mantle! Heaven forbid if a little bit of nuclear waste got dissolved in 901950000000000 Litres of fluid where nothing lives, under an area of land thousands of kilometres away from anywhere with a remote amount of volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions might actually kill people!

In all seriousness, where is your point?

Butterfly effect....


In all seriousness though Solar cells do take energy to build, but so does an oil refinery and a nuclear power plant. Solar cells are silicon based and silicon is just slightly abundant on earth...

AND the 50% of fossil fuels we have left on earth includes the stuff that will be excessively difficult to retrieve.

And at least people are making advances in solar power, the top people in the nuclear industry said that they can not see any advances in nuclear power production and nuclear waste disposal happening any time in the near future.
 

NonExistant

Don't read this sentance.
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
71
Location
A Rubber Band Factory
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Did you notice on the news they can now make plastics from sugar cane.

That's where the real future is: sugar cane, it can do everything - fuel, alcohol, sugar, glues, maluable plastics, hard plastics.
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
NonExistant said:
Did you notice on the news they can now make plastics from sugar cane.

That's where the real future is: sugar cane, it can do everything - fuel, alcohol, sugar, glues, maluable plastics, hard plastics.
Extracting fuel from sugar cane is an extremely inefficient process, whereby you use more energy to extract the ethanol than you can get back by using it.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Calculon said:
Extracting fuel from sugar cane is an extremely inefficient process, whereby you use more energy to extract the ethanol than you can get back by using it.
The way of the future is in nuclear power (hopefully one day fusion) and renewables (such as solar) for minor things such as water heating.
 

Meldrum

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,270
Location
Gone.
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Look, Nuclear power is not the way to go. It's:

- Bloody expensive
- Environmentally dangerous
- Vulnerable to attack
- Dangerous to manage
- Unnecessary

Stop giving us your Howard repetition shit.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Gavrillo said:
Look, Nuclear power is not the way to go. It's:

- Bloody expensive
- Environmentally dangerous
- Vulnerable to attack
- Dangerous to manage
- Unnecessary

Stop giving us your Howard repetition shit.
You're such an angry, angry person....

- Bloody expensive... compared to what? millions of solar panels?
- Environmentally dangerous.... While this is true, it's not like we're without places to put nuclear waste.
- Vulnerable to attack... We already have alot of things that are vulnerable to attack, stop being so scared :rolleyes:
- Dangerous to manage ... Yes, it is... why are you so damn scared?
- Unnecessary... Your 'solar panel/wind farm' solution is utterly inconcievable.
 

Meldrum

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,270
Location
Gone.
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
NOT ANGRY! I like you, you sound cool. I JUST HATE THE LIBERAL PARTY >______<

nts said:
Bloody expensive... compared to what? millions of solar panels?
It's not millions and solar panels are cheap - they're in calculators.

nts said:
Environmentally dangerous.... While this is true, it's not like we're without places to put nuclear waste.
Not just the waste, but the process of sepparating the Uranium atom, refining, blahblah.

nts said:
- Vulnerable to attack... We already have alot of things that are vulnerable to attack, stop being so scared
I'll give you that. But why make more major targets for terrorists?

nts said:
- Dangerous to manage ... Yes, it is... why are you so damn scared?
Umm...how's nuclear fallout sound? :p

nts said:
- Unnecessary... Your 'solar panel/wind farm' solution is utterly inconcievable.
Never say never.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
We'll, solar arrays aren't cheap, but they are cheaper than nuclear power plants, and unlike nuclear power, they continue to get cheaper and more efficient.

Indeed, given the fact that if current trends continue (and all signs suggest they certainly will), solar will be a far better energy source than nuclear. I fail to understand NTB's vehement opposition to solar and I also fail to understand his relegation of solar to heating. Solar heaters are not solar arrays. Two different things. Just as solar arrays aren't photolysers. Each technology does, however, have a potential role in energy demand - far more so than hydropower or wind, IMHO. Hydro and wind are all well and good, but I myself do not see in them the potential which I see in solar.
 

Calculon

Mohammed was a paedophile
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
1,743
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Gavrillo you still haven't told me why nuclear waste is bad for the mantle.
 

Meldrum

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,270
Location
Gone.
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Calculon said:
Gavrillo you still haven't told me why nuclear waste is bad for the mantle.
I was at a Dr Karl lecture and he said if nuclear waste entered the mantle it would create cracks in the crust above Australia, increasing our likelyhood of seizmic activity, and eventually - in about three thousand years - volcanic activity.

@ NONEXISTANT; that was only an analogy :p. If only we could combine the power of all the little calculator panels in the world...we could build a deathray.
 
Last edited:

laney

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
337
Gender
Female
HSC
2002
Slide Rule said:
Indeed, given the fact that if current trends continue (and all signs suggest they certainly will), solar will be a far better energy source than nuclear..
THe main problem with solar power is that it's unreliable - what are we going to do during night time for electricity? We can store energy from the sun except the problem with that is that it becomes very expensive and technology so far doesn't allow us to store enough energy to make the costs of storing the energy worthwhile.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
laney said:
THe main problem with solar power is that it's unreliable - what are we going to do during night time for electricity? We can store energy from the sun except the problem with that is that it becomes very expensive and technology so far doesn't allow us to store enough energy to make the costs of storing the energy worthwhile.
I suppose I haven't been very clear with my claims or statements.

If the photolysis process is refined adequately, the energy would be stored in hydrogen gas. Whilst it is true that currently, technology for storing hydrogen gas is not very good (though it does exist), there is the major benefit of the fact that hydrogen storage is something which many researchers from governments, universities and private labs around the world are working on. Some novel methods of storing H2 gass include glass microbeads and carbon nanotubes.

Oh, and photolysis is the process of catalytic dissociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen. With the right catalyst (which looks to be Titanium Oxide or Titania, which Australia has immense amounts of), water can be split into its constituents far more easily than with a process like electrolysis. There's also the benefit of the energy used to split it coming from the sun, so you don't need to generate it. This is useful not only for energy production but also for things like the industrial production of ammonia, which the 2nd most important industrial chemical.

Oh course if you want to use good old fashioned solar arrays, you could simply make them electrolyse the water to produce H2 gas, when excess energy is produced.

Japan is also looking into harnessing the sun's energy in space and them beaming it back down to Earth as EMR. This process works regardless of time of day.

Indeed, the storage of energy is perhaps as big as or a bigger problem than acquiring the energy itself.

Further, when the sun goes down, that's when your other renewables kick in, like hot dry rock, hydro, wind, biogas.

Hot dry rock is a curious technology which is currently being explored by France, Germany, America and Australia. Whilst not technically renewable since it is powered by radioactive fissures in rocks, it is constant and reliable for a few hundred years. And whilst not renewable, the Earth reshapes itself often, creating new areas of such activity as it does so.
 
Last edited:

Meldrum

Banned
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,270
Location
Gone.
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Slide Rule said:
Japan is also looking into harnessing the sun's energy in space and them beaming it back down to Earth as EMR. This process works regardless of time of day.
Bloody kooky Japs.
 

tech.knockout

New Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
29
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Slide Rule said:
I started reading your post thinking you were a person well informed on the subject of energy, but it turns out you're just another uninformed drone knocking renewables because you you think it's for hippies and that destroying the world is the manly thing to do. Ah well.
No I dont think its for hippies, im also very much an environmentalist relative to the general public. The truth is, solar/wind , as it is now as a form of mass energy, is a pipe dream. Perhaps in the future it can be viable. Ironically that kind of response(the kind that doesnt address the points raised) gives me the impression that you are a hippy. Mind you I made that post before I noticed your post just before, which does(finally) reveal some technical acheivements.
I find your comparison, and '$1 per watt' figure misleading. The source of that statistic says thats just for the panels, you completely disregarded the expense required to turn such panels into a mass energy producer - labour, materials, huge tracts of land, storage production(no viable form of storage is yet developed), inverters, etc. Factor in this, panels are a fraction of the total capital price of solar.
Admittably Im outdated when it comes to solar tech as the industry is moving at a very fast pace, my claim that it need to be hundreds-thousands of times more efficient was based on many (perhaps very outdated)statements that panels covering some crazy area (some say the whole of greenland) will be needed to power the world.
Given that the capacity of the US is around 800000MW, we still need a massive 6000-7000+ square kilometres of your future 'third generation' solar panels to power the US(assuming average 500W/sq metre of sun energy for 12 hours a day, 50% efficiency of third generation, and that it only produces energy half a day). Not to mention some gigantic storage farm. Thats the simplest way of looking at it.

The 500w figure is a middle estimate/assumption: http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp?artid=375&type=6&root=2&parent=2&cat=21
The incident solar radiation received at any particular location on the Earth's surface may vary between 0 and 1.05 kilowatts per square metre depending on the latitude, the season, the time of day, and the degree of cloudiness.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top