I worked on renewable energy projects a few years back, and while the idea of a large disruptive technology development sounds awesome, the reality is that there are already a plethora of renewable energy turbines and designs that would greatly improve the world... But the engineers and inventors running around with these ideas have no idea how to go from a small scale proof of concept into a fully built out manufact…
Energy
281–287 of 287 posts
Re: Energy
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about elemental toxins like mercury and arsenic?
Just collect and store. They can be purified and have commercial use. Otherwise, since they came from the earth in the first place, storing it back in the earth doesn't change the amount of toxins we have in the ground.
So why is "collect and store" OK for this stuff, which lasts forever, but not OK for nuclear waste, which "only" lasts some thousands of years?
Re: Energy
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> at least hundreds of billions of dollars on this very same project. How is that a measure of doing something meaningful ? Take EADS making the Ariane rocket launchers, they have been spending billions and billions of Euros making rockets for years, yet they have no project like SpaceX and yet they will be rapidly obsolete once SpaceX works as expected. It's not about the amount you spend, it's about experimenting i…
It's a measure that there's been a lot of effort going on in the past decades, so it's unlikely that a random startup with minuscule budget will suddenly crack it. SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets). We don't have a break-even fusion reactor yet. But to be honest, I think we need to encourage more effort, so I applaud the project anywa…
> SpaceX vs. Airbus Group is a bad example because Elon is only dropping costs of what is a proven technology (rockets).
I disagree on that point. SpaceX is not just making rockets cheaper, it's changing the paradigm by making rockets re-usable, which is very far from what EADS is planning to do currently. It's a game-changer and will divide the costs of launching something to space by 10 or more.
I cant comment on the Fusion startup, but we should not assume that companies operating with billions of cash are more effective at innovation than smaller ones with smaller budgets. They aren't, and that has been proven in many cases, SpaceX is just one good example coming to mind. In the pharma world, very small biotechs with minimal funding are responsible for the discovery of many new drug targets, and not the large pharma groups themselves.
Re: Energy
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just collect and store. They can be purified and have commercial use. Otherwise, since they came from the earth in the first place, storing it back in the earth doesn't change the amount of toxins we have in the ground.
So why is "collect and store" OK for this stuff, which lasts forever, but not OK for nuclear waste, which "only" lasts some thousands of years?
Because this stuff already existed in the ground (just not as concentrated), is not as toxic as radioactive waste, and can be recovered and reused. Nuclear waste generates new highly toxic substances that are extremely dangerous. And even after the waste has "decayed", the products are still toxic (just not radioactive) and last forever.
Re: Energy
#285" It doesn't require giant corporations, government sponsorship, complex regulations, or exotic engineering skills to implement." Oh, Come on! With similar government subsidies and Mandates, Donkey wheels could deliver a similar power density. With such subsidies and mandates, donkey wheels would double, double and redouble again, and one could therefore project donkey wheels to exceed all power generation.
Ironically enough, a donkey is 1/3 horsepower, which is 748 watts of power. A donkey at about 250 watts is therefore is roughly equivalent to a solar panel the same size. The donkey has the advantage over solar, in that it's dispatchable, while solar is not.
I wish we considered donkeys instead of Solar as a replacement for fossil fules, since the shortcomings might be more obvious to the innumerate.Re: Energy
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a more efficient way to do that. Use TCP/IP to synchronize the consumption of power with its production. Solar and wind are pretty awesome if you can schedule around them. And most of our power consumption is amenable to it.
So turn everything off when the wind's not blowing and the sun's not shining? That doesn't sound ideal to me.
Wind's always flowing somewhere. The sun shines pretty reliably. And a huge percentage of our electricity consumption could quite easily be time shifted.
Re: Energy
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they secured in theory then?
Buried, sealed, and guarded with armed former spec ops folks.
You're going the secure 1MW reactors with armed special ops ex soldiers? Even if it's a 10MW farm on average, doesn't that explode the cost?
And isn't the fact that they'd be "spec ops" caliber guards reflect that there is in fact a security risk with these materials getting into the wrong hands? If so it seems like a committed enemy could attack one of the thousands of these sites successfully. The distributed model seems problematic.