search results matching tag: solar energy

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (24)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (1)     Comments (59)   

geo321 (Member Profile)

Hitting the Sun is HARD

vil says...

Quite counterintuitive.

Re: nuclear fuel - you just need to get that spent nuclear fuel off the Earth (i.e. shoot it at 11 km/s) because you do not care how long it will take to crash into the sun and you can use solar energy to slow it down gradually.
That is if you really want to get rid of something that might be an important resource down the road, in a very expensive way.

Nuclear energy is awesome

jmd says...

Bullshit. If we actually put our foot down and put up enough solar panels we would be golden. But there is no one who wants to finance that now. No one in the big sector wants to because they have their money elsewhere like oil, so that leaves us consumers to figure it out and so we need to tech to become cheap enough for consumers to pick it up. There is zero reason why solar energy would not solve everything on a technical level. It just requires a hefty investment.

ChaosEngine said:

3: Invest heavily into other energy sources. And, like it or not, that's got to include some form of nuclear. Renewable (solar, wind, tide) etc, will help, but they won't cover all of our energy needs and they have their own problems. So ideally, it's fusion, but practically, thorium seems the next best bet.

Renewable Energy from Evaporating Water

GenjiKilpatrick says...

This seems extremely silly when promoted as a potential source of renewable energy.

Interesting science for sure. Lots of new ideas and applications to learn from but..

Solar Energy + Batteries = Best Solution

man freaks out holding door open

speechless says...

I can imagine it:

Beneficent aliens on a survey mission (the Kritchans) crashed onto our planet due to an unpredictable burst of solar energy. Stranded and alone, their ship destroyed, they were rescued by a local farmer. In time they taught him of their Kritchan ways.

The farmer now knows that in their culture, not holding a door open for someone is considered the ultimate insult. But they were hungry and desperate and had a coupon for a value meal.

They tried to just come in and order a burger, but people were rude and slammed the door in their face.

Confronted with the judgmental reactionary stupidity of mankind, our alien ambassador farmer friend finally freaks out and wrecks some fake flora in a fast food joint, facilitating the flight and future fury of our foreign friends. Was it worth it?

It's just a theory.

ChaosEngine said:

Normally I would too, but I can't imagine anything that would justify this behaviour.

Bloom Boxes

newtboy says...

Please show proof, URL?
This is the exact same line that people against solar tried to sell us 10 years ago...it was BS then, so I'm guessing it's the same today.

Lets see....How much taxpayer money, exactly, per KWH or per turbine (specify size in KWH and type), is being "wasted"? From your certitude I assume you must have a number. If you don't know that number, you can't possibly know if the money is 'wasted' or if it was a great deal for the amount of energy produced, and I'll believe you are simply stating opinion, not fact.

Over what time period are turbines "not paying for their investment"? Are you claiming that, over the full expected lifespan of an average turbine it costs more than making the same amount of electricity with coal? Or Natural gas? Do you include the cost of climate change in that calculation? Didn't think so.

What type of turbine are you talking about...or are you unaware that there are dozens of different designs, some which are not ugly, noisy, or harming any wildlife at all?

The rather rude BS thinking about solar energy is the same kind of rude BS thinking you are displaying, making claims that all turbines suck and should be abolished (paraphrasing you) without any science or math to back you up. On the other hand, just slight investigation shows at least some of your claims are outright wrong. It was about the BS, not the solar energy...understand now?

That doesn't mean that there are not some instances of the problems you describe, but most of them are problems from well over 10 years ago that have been solved. Just painting regular 3 prop turbines with ultraviolet paint reduces bird and bat strikes considerably...making a turbine that doesn't have props worked even better, and they work better at low and high speed wind.

You do know that the government pays the same kind of people to have electric lines on their property, and phone lines, and road ways, train lines, etc...whether they're being used or not, right? They're paying for the use of the land. This is not a new process in any way, or one used only for turbines by a long shot.

A10anis said:

I thought my point was clear. obviously not, so let me try to simplify. Landowners are being paid tax payers money (which we can ill afford) for turbines that are not paying for their investment, are not efficient, and have to be turned off in high winds. Not to mention that they are also ugly, noisy, and are harming wild life (birds and bats are being disorientated by the turbulence and flying into them.)
As for your rather rude comment on "BS thinking," regarding solar energy? Well, I wasn't aware we were discussing that.

Bloom Boxes

A10anis says...

I thought my point was clear. obviously not, so let me try to simplify. Landowners are being paid tax payers money (which we can ill afford) for turbines that are not paying for their investment, are not efficient, and have to be turned off in high winds. Not to mention that they are also ugly, noisy, and are harming wild life (birds and bats are being disorientated by the turbulence and flying into them.)
As for your rather rude comment on "BS thinking," regarding solar energy? Well, I wasn't aware we were discussing that.

newtboy said:

I don't get your point. You seem upset that land owners are being paid for rent if, at any time, the turbine isn't making money. The land owners aren't paid for the generation, they're paid for the land...and the land is still being used....so what do you mean?
I think I answered your (and Ching's) second point about cost/benefit above. You are correct that not ALL can benefit, that doesn't mean that no one can. That's the same BS line of thinking that convinced so many to not get solar when it was nearly FREE, and now they're paying ever rising exorbitant electric bills instead. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't buy the BS, and bought a solar system instead. It's saved me a bunch of money at this point, and I have 12+ more years before any serious expected maintenance.

Best political ad ever-but then the opponent is weak

CreamK says...

>> ^criticalthud:

2. mostly unrealistic. america is #1 energy hog and neither technology advancements nor more drilling here will solve that or feed that gluttonous thirst. we are dependent on foreign energy, which is partly why we have 450 military bases around the world. We need to reduce need, and to do that, we need to re-examine our role in the world as pure consumers.


Well said. There are number of things that would reduce the power consumption right away. Refine the stupid pollution control that favors higher consumption in vehicles (lower consumption = more pollution per gallon when it should be mileage vs pollution.. now you can make a car that goes 10MPG but "pollutes" less), invest in public transport, invest in renewal sources.. You got huge amounts of land empty that could be used for solar farming, long coastlines to harvest wave energy, enough thermal activity to take energy from there (allthou thinking that USA is drilling to the core frightens me, you people have never been could at moderation...).

It seems to be that the thinking goes: This (particular) renewable source is not enough so we don't do it at all. But step by step, it would start to play a major part in the big picture. And there's endless supplies of solar energy, 250 W/m2 in average taking cloud cover and sun angle in to account.

keenantasting (Member Profile)

"Son of Boss" new attack ad on Rmoney

lantern53 says...

Isn't it time for Obama to come clean regarding how he got into Columbia, his grades, his medical records, Fast and Furious.

Anyway, when you give your money to the US gov't, they do such a good job watching over it...hell, they might even give it to a fictional solar energy company, like Solyndra, or a number of others.

Let's all come clean...

T. Boone Pickens: Let's transform energy -- with natural gas

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TED, TED Talks, Oil, Methane, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Energy, Consuption, United States' to 'TED, TED Talks, Oil, Methane, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Energy, Consumption, United States' - edited by Trancecoach

MARS Rover hits 8th anniversary - original plan: 90 days

deathcow says...

I guess ol' Curiosity wont worry about solar energy with its nuclear pellets. Did you see they cut JPL into the tires of Curiosity so that the tracks left behind it all over Mars say

JPL
JPL
JPL
JPL
JPL

(in morse code though!)

Meatspace. I mean, really. Meatspace

"Recovery Act" Funded Solar Power Plant Named Solyndra

marinara says...

zerohedge.com:
Yesterday Zero Hedge contributor Bruce Krasting had some very insightful and very prophetic words when he asked rhetorically if a "Government investment disaster in the works??" The company in question is (now former) massively subsidized solar energy company Solyndra. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy less than 24 hours after Bruce proposed that the company is nothing but a stimulus black hole. We congratulate him on his investigative efforts. Alas, being private, there was no way to short it and capitalize on this investigative coup de grace. And while there are no winners, there are plenty of losers? Who - why US taxpayers of course. Why? Because as some may recall, Solyndra is one of the "shining examples" of Obama's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. After all none other than president Obama said that Solyndra is "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package." Alas Solyndra has now become a less than shining example of the complete catastrophe this latest exercise in pointless Keynesianism has been, all on the backs of US taxpayers. But don't worry, Obama is about to bring us a fresh new such fiscal stimulus catastrohpe any minute. This time it will be different.

From ABC:

President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package.

“Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations,” Obama said at the time. “This new factory is the result of those loans.”

In 2009, the Obama administration fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, later awarding it $535 million in guarantees from the stimulus funds.

The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds — claims the administration has denied.
All this delightful irony on tape:

X CIA asset explains the true events leading up to 9/11

marbles says...

Susan Lindauer:
...
I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.”

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”
...
I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.
...



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon