Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > basic engineering      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Playing with Madness
Joined: 8/1/2010
Msg: 50
basic engineering Page 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Money, money, money. That's the answer.

Look, the technology is there just the interest has to be there. All we hear these days is the Keystone Pipe line that is going to extend 1700 miles and ship Oil from one side of North America to the other.

This is no different, all that has to be done is create a pipeline that is going to funnel water out of the ocean to water treatment plants, have the salt water purified and converted over to potable water and then piped to arid countries. It's simple on paper and expensive.

This will never happen though as too much infighting between countries and people. Until the world comes together like one big Beneton commercial, it is not feasible. Just a "pipe" dream.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 7:03:20 AM
"It's a political problem, not an engineering one. When your government is corrupt and more interested in grabbing as much wealth and power for themselves and their families as possible, it's kind of hard to find the funding for major engineering projects.

Why should they fund a project to feed 10,000 of their own people when they can add a 20th solid gold toilet to their palace?"- Alan1212

Funny, for some reason I was thinking about the trouble we are having funding NASA, but I understand Obama was able to put a basketball court in the White House- hmmmm, "our side of the street", again?

Could it be that these sorts of problems are NOT limited to Africa?
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 7:09:19 AM
"-abundant energy."-Wily Fox

Really?

How "abundant" is it at noon in January in Minnesota? How about midnight, anywhere?

Call me crazy, but I tend to need illumination and power when sunlight is LESS abundant, and like WOW, even when there is plenty sunlight here in Arizona, my electric bill goes UP.

OBVIOUSLY, I am missing something, can you explain, please?
 mountaindog65
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 53
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 11:39:31 PM
Part of the answer has been under construction for quite some time...

Although made unpopular by mainstream media and our inability or unwillingness to go investigate for ourselves and place reliance on the talkng heads of what today is entertaining journalism, Gaddafi of Libya, used large sums from the proceeds of Libya's oil to build what is considered the largest irrigation project on earth. If it weren't for certain elements in high places currently involved in all-out destruction of a noble attempt to free Libya from the desert and "western" dependance on imported goods, perhaps there would indeed be water enough for all of Libya's people and excess left over for further piping to its neighboring countries to enjoy as Gaddafi envisioned.

This video tells just one but one of several very significant untold stories and a whole lot more than FAUX NEWS et. al., don't want, and never will tell us about what's really going on over there.

http://youtu.be/TH9Oyc3QV00
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 54
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/10/2011 9:29:27 PM
Yeah, I know about the project in Spain, 13 hours worth of heat- so what? I am not impressed. "Renewable" energy is getting a lot of free publicity and funding and there are sound ENGINEERING reasons it will never catch up to the promise of nuclear energy for a variety of applications.

MAXIMUM CONCEIVABLE WATTS PER METER SQUARED is 300, at equator, clear skies, equinoxes, no clouds, 24-hr average. Multiply this by 12 to 20% to get maximum usable power extracted.

Then multiply times square meters needed to come up with needed land area to devote to this- NOTHING CAN INCREASE THIS, but clouds, dust, bird droppings, etc. can and WILL decrease output.

Think about THAT, read THIS:

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/thorium_electricity_for_developing_countries.htm
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 1:17:57 PM
FYI, my gift to those with open minds:

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/energy_facts.htm
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 1:42:26 PM

Its not just sunlight we get from the sun. We also get heat. There several successful projects running in Europe, where water is heated from heat stored in the ground. In Spain there is project where sunlight is super-heated through a series of parabolic mirrors and can produce electricity easily even on a cloudy day. Photosynthesis seems to works just fine during inclement weather. Just because the technology cannot produce the '24/7' demand yet, doesn't mean it never will. Politics, economics and the big business in fossil and nuclear fuels means wwon't be adopting any other solutions any time soon.


Agreed Wily Fox, that if we keep dumping most of our eggs into the toxic nuke and fossil hole, we may be hard pressed to have enough money to pour into innovation and development of safe, clean renewables. Japan is already doing the economic death dance in trying to make citizens bail out TEPCO. The Soviets never recovered from their duel debacles of Afghanistan and Chernobyl. When, not if, the US has it's own Fukushima, we will likewise be financially burdened, perhaps to a greater degree than those old empires due to our robust litigious culture.

The Soviets were adamant about hiding the horrific nature of the Chernobyl disaster from it's citizens, avoiding the worst of the financial consequences. Japan is a bit more open and stuck in an age where such Soviet style secrecy is no longer an option. Despite the best efforts to politically minimize the fallout of the disaster, TEPCO is in danger of bankruptcy and the citizens of Japan will be left holding the radioactive bag.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/tepco-slumps-to-record-low-on-radiation-spike.html

Interesting take on the Chernobyl contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

Perhaps the US and other Nuke nations will learn the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima and have an honest dialogue about the financial and social risks of nuclear power and adjust the course forward accordingly. Gotta have dreams...honesty could happen.

Efficiency and conservation already decreasing demand.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/11/homes-power-demand-falling/

Despite claims to the contray by Nuke industry trolls, solar is already cost effective, far cheaper and safer than nukes when all the subsidies and hidden costs are exposed, and with continued investments in R&D, quite capable of providing energy for the world.

The Spanish salt storage test was just the beginning of new storage tech. Panel and solar efficiency will continue to become more efficient.
http://buildaroo.com/news/article/technology-triple-efficiency-solar-panels/

And from the babes of the world, comes ingenuity and engineering solutions.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/10/05/malawi.wind.boy/index.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/william-yuan-invents-3d-nanotube-solar-cell.php
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 57
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 3:00:39 PM
Efficiency? Sure, up to theoretical maximum of 29%, unless at night or clouds, dust, bird droppings, etc. for PV cells, when output is ZERO.

You want to talk about heat and efficiency, WF? GOOD!

Equation for maximum thermodynamic efficiency is 1- low temp/high temp, so higher temps lead to higher efficiency. Pressurized water reactor core temps reach about 600 F, how does that compare to your Spanish example?
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 58
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 5:03:55 PM


Despite claims to the contray by Nuke industry trolls, solar is already cost effective, far cheaper and safer than nukes when all the subsidies and hidden costs are exposed, and with continued investments in R&D, quite capable of providing energy for the world.


earthpuppy,
Back up your statement. Not with newspaper releases, but fact.

Your posts are truly false when you go to those extremes. I've said before solar has a place to trim peak demand, and could possibly cut the 1/3 top off the peak curve, buts its not gone to tap into the base 2/3 demand.

You are not speaking the truth at all, as solar energy is highly supported by tax dollars, from the research, to the manufacturing, and the tax credits to install it. If you don't think there are hidden costs then you only see through rose colored glasses. My neighbor didn't count on a big insurance bump when he installed his, and he would not have made that decision had it not been for the tax breaks. One of the reasons its working in California, is the law makes the electric feed back into the system come off the bill. You get no money if you feed more into the grid than you use, but you can store credit I think for three to six months. This type system allows you to draw back at night, but there would be no night lights without coal, gas, hydraulic, or nuclear.

As for payback its not gone to happen. Here in California we made big strides in water reduction, mostly forced upon the building industry. You would thing this would reduce operating costs. But the opposite effect, less demand brings less revenue, so they jack up the meter fees and water unit costs, in many cases 30% to 50% in last 7 years. If your building a new home and need to hook onto city water your basic fee for a 3/4" or 1" connection averages 5000 to 7000 dollars.

Here are two examples of a solar bankrupt companies with the USA on the hook for 1 billion. I have more, that I've been researching and filed away, where California energy commission has been bank rolling through the years.

http://patriotupdate.com/10948/evergreen-solar-bankrupt-after-getting-stimulus-cash-promising-800-jobs

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-08/us/fbi.solyndra.raid_1_fbi-searches-solar-panels-solyndra?_s=PM:US

----------------------------------------
If your gone to be so ultra bias toward renewable energy, then you have no credibility. I have nothing against solar in many forms, but even you rely on alternate energy to heat your home, fuel your transportation, water, and power for work beyond your basic electric needs.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/12/2011 7:13:38 PM
I too, am curious to see what reply our friend will make, with 'bated breath I await his penetrating response...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 60
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/14/2011 2:03:18 PM
Robin..
Highly bias nuke people take great pains to discount the true death toll of nukes through the whole life cycle, accidents, and lifetime exposure limits that are increasing.
They also tend to discount the whole plethora of subsidies through the entire nuclear lifecycle. The hidden costs, paid by citizens via taxes, far exceed the presented nuclear costs. Nukes also garnered over 95% of the public subsidies over the course of 50 years. In the 80s, tens of billions of bucks were wasted on nuke plants that were never completed. Likewise in the 90s, there was a giant sucking sound of money being sucked into the hole of nukes shut down because of high operating costs.

The recent solar industry washout in the US is not because of any sort of failure of the solar power industry as a whole, quite the contrary as record growth in the industry continues around the world. Solyndra, Evergreen and a few other US companies are in trouble because the Chinese are subsidizing their industry to crank out cheaper panels via mechanization of production. Where the US companies tried to tweak the tech and get more bang/kw per panel, the Chinese Mal-Wartized the industry. The industry is reaching for the holy grail of $1/watt panels. There will be winners and losers, and scammers as we have seen in the nuclear industry as well.

If all the subsidies are included, solar is already cheaper than nukes, particularly when you include human health costs, and averted Co2 emissions. (The Solar Co2 footprint is around half that of Nukes.)
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

Your comparison of water to sunshine is a bit of a distraction. Riverside and other California communities water supplies and costs are a function of supply and demand. You also have infrastructure that needs maintenance and replacement, pumping costs, recycling and desalinization costs, and a tight, often diminishing supply.

Sun, on the other hand is abundant and capturing it for power is getting cheaper. The recent California blackout is no because of "greens", but because of reliance of the energy grid to suck energy like water from where it's cheapest du jour. The blackout should serve as a warning about how dependent our culture has become on a grid prone to human failure and natural disasters. The Browns Ferry E-5 tornado blackout also showed this dependency. Decentralizing power production/rooftop solar is a good investment to hedge against the uncertainties and vulnerabilities of grid power.
NOAA is warning of the possible consequences of a major global blackout event should a solar flare cycle overwhelm the systems.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194166/20110808/solar-storms-severe-solar-storms-earth-paralyse-carrington-event.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/033564_solar_flares_nuclear_power_plants.html

Irregulator.. The nuke people always rely in unrealistic, lowballed figures for lifecycle nuclear induced mortality. Ja will go with zero while others estimate the death toll in the millions. The nuke people cite a couple of guys falling off a roof that had not been using personal fall arrest systems. The installation industry, going through it's own growing pains at that time has since gotten serious about PFASs.
Here is an analysis of nuke death studies.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/14/2011 7:49:55 PM
China has been through quite a bit in the the XXth century and is more culturally diverse than one might readily expect, multilingual, etc., though Mandarin IS gaining ground as the national official language.

China is INDUSTRIALIZED, while most of Africa is not- it is mostly just a source of raw materials, as Paul K pointed out. This is the biggest and most significant difference. China has a large, well-educated and industrious population and this is a strength rather than a liability. It HAS MORE PEOPLE USING MORE ENERGY PER CAPITA than any African nation, not coincidentally, and the rate of energy usage is growing.

No industrialized country can be run on terrestrial solar energy, so it is not surprising China has plans to double its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, to double THAT figure by 2030, and to continue that policy to at least 2040.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Nuclear_power
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > basic engineering