Mining Engineering. (1 Viewer)

[Shuter]

Obviously 3rd generation cells would be many times cheaper than nuclear or oil! Coal is something like $1 per watt and nuclear 7$ per watt.

Hahaha, I think you'll find that's per MEGAwatt.

 

[Courtenay]

I was thinking that the articles you presented actually has some revelations of new incredible technical acheivements in existing renewables(wind and solar), or a new method of renewable energy is developed. Instead I see just the same old wishful thinking and promotion for solar/wind without anything on real advances towards what really matters, their inefficiency, unreliability, and cost.
At the moment we need some crazy amount of solar panels/wind turbines to power any substantially populated city/country(iceland ). Solar's/wind's cost/watt has to increase a hundredfold or perhaps a thousand( let alone their unreliability) to be considered as major sources of energy instead of as the political tools they are today. Its still a pipedream.

Do you know that at the moment the companies sell solar cells with a 25year guarentee? And they have only been making them for that long, which means the ones they made 25 years ago are still in perfect working condition. In another 5 years they will be sold with 30 years warantees and the same until it reaches a lifetime.

Also the renewables industry grew by 67% last year and over the last 10 years the minimum growth per year was 30%

It is a growing industry and it is growing rapidly and it has to. Like it or not over the last 100 years we have consumed half the worlds fossil fuels and they expect what is left to last pretty much 50 years at maximum. So if renewables is just a pipe dream i think the world is pretty well screwed...

 

[laney]

Like it or not over the last 100 years we have consumed half the worlds fossil fuels and they expect what is left to last pretty much 50 years at maximum..

nej, there's heaps more than that, it's just a matter of being able to mine the other reserves, which can be more of a problem than actually finding the ore deposits.

 

[Slidey]

Hahaha, I think you'll find that's per MEGAwatt.

Highly incorrect. Any source of pwoer that good would be very intriguing indeed and I would wonder if it obeys the laws of thermodynamics

No, it is per watt. Of course, Nuclear is also far more efficient than oil and currently also photovoltaics. Even so, solar cost per watt is based on initial cost only, so in the long run, it's pretty decent.

On the topic of efficiency, I think the average combustion engine's efficiency in burning petrol is like 2%. It could be increased, but why bother? It's easier to just burn more fuel, after all. .

Laney: Perhaps, perhaps not. It is true we have used roughly half. But if you take into places like China, India, Africa, as well as the developed countries, then obviously there's going to be two things happening: more people using energy, more intensive use of said energy.

 

[laney]

Laney: Perhaps, perhaps not. It is true we have used roughly half. But if you take into places like China, India, Africa, as well as the developed countries, then obviously there's going to be two things happening: more people using energy, more intensive use of said energy.

You're only thinking of deposits on the land. What about offshore deposits? Pretty much everything off shore hasn't been discovered yet and there's gonna be a whole lot more deposits out there.

 

[Meldrum]

When you saw off-shore deposits, you're only talking about oil and natural gas, right? 'Cause it seems rather difficult and futile to consider under-water mining.

 

[Slidey]

Does it? What is an oil rig?

Where there's a will, there's a way. If somebody finds something useful enough to to be worth the cost of extracting it from the ocean floor, somebody will do that.

 

[Timmay]

wouldnt it be cheaper to convert to renewable resources? i think the "underwater" fossil fuels are a bit overexaggerated and more of a pipe dream than renewables, you gotta remember that fossil fuels are produced by fossilised organisms, and these organisms have only really been in abundance near the coast, like i doubt your gonna find much oil in the middle of the pacific 2km deep. Also ive heard people propose mining for coal on antarctica (which was rich forests/swamps at one stage) but i think 4km of ice shelf is more of a problem than investing in renewable energy sources. hmm i guess if we just keep using the fossil fuels the ice will all melt and we can get to that coal afterall

 

[Meldrum]

Yeah, but most of the people in charge of the world are old, conservative war-mongrels (edit: not mongerers, jumb). They'll always look to reliable and stable sources of energy over new, fandangled ones.

Carbon's been the lifeblood of industry for over 300 years now...they don't see any reason to stop.

Although, I do agree: it's stupid not to use renewable energy sources. But, I don't see huge change coming from the top. We should be focusing on achieving change at grass-roots level. Get homes in on this solar-energy kick. Make every home have at least one 6 by 9 solar pannel feeding into their powerbox and watch how much they save each month. If they like it, they'll buy more. Then, they'll be using the age-old language of big business...

 

[Slidey]

Well, the oil companies are making the switch anyway. So much for conservatives.

It's *mongers, BTW, not 'mongerers' or 'mongrels'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

These "renewable" energy sources simply aren't efficient enough. They will go to nuclear power.

 

[Meldrum]

Well, the oil companies are making the switch anyway. So much for conservatives.

It's *mongers, BTW, not 'mongerers' or 'mongrels'.

lol. Yeah, I know.

Mongerers - Jumb
Mongrels - better word for:
Mongers- Bush

 

[Meldrum]

These "renewable" energy sources simply aren't efficient enough. They will go to nuclear power.

God, you *must* vote Liberal;

- Renewable energy sources can provide enough energy.
- The biproduct of nuclear is not only expensive to deal with but very dangerous.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God, you *must* vote liberal;

- Renewable energy sources can provide enough energy.
- The biproduct of nuclear is not only expensive to deal with but very dangerous.

You already know I do.

Give me your master plan for how you create enough solar energy to replace our coal power plants.

 

[Meldrum]

Give me your master plan for how you create enough solar energy to replace our coal power plants.

God, you know that I've got no chance of doing that - just like you couldn't fully forecast your plans for nukes.

Although, any plan would have to take place over some time. Gradually establishing more wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric plants around the country and phasing out your ageing monoliths of the Industrial Revolution.

Also, more government spending would be directed towards developing power grids throughout the country as much is lost through inefficient structuring.

Lastly, over the long term, the trialing of huge 'Solar Farms' out in Western New South Wales. As Liberal mismanagement of salinity continues to reclaim more land, we could build huge compounds of solar panals in areas close to major centres, like Burke or Broken Hill. That way, we'd save money on building huge underground/overground electricity pyres.

Phew.

Now, how would you plan to increase the number of nuclear power stations whilst protecting them from sabotage?

 

[Calculon]

I think a few equations are in order:

Hydro = utterly fucked up waterways

Wind = incredibly inefficient + deforestation to provide room for wind farms

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God, you know that I've got no chance of doing that - just like you couldn't fully forecast your plans for nukes.

Although, any plan would have to take place over some time. Gradually establishing more wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric plants around the country and phasing out your ageing monoliths of the Industrial Revolution.

Also, more government spending would be directed towards developing power grids throughout the country as much is lost through inefficient structuring.

Lastly, over the long term, the trialing of huge 'Solar Farms' out in Western New South Wales. As Liberal mismanagement of salinity continues to reclaim more land, we could build huge compounds of solar panals in areas close to major centres, like Burke or Broken Hill. That way, we'd save money on building huge underground/overground electricity pyres.

Phew.

Now, how would you plan to increase the number of nuclear power stations whilst protecting them from sabotage?

No... my plan would be setting up nuclear power plants and either selling off our waste or storing it somewhere unimportant (like adelaide). I think it's much easier to protect a few powerplants than some large huge grouping of solar panels...

I think it's also important to realise that it's not exactly simple to 'sabotage' one.

 

[Calculon]

In all seriousness, if we bury radioactive waste in the Simpson desert, away from any tribal land so the Abos don't whinge, who's it going to effect?

 

[Meldrum]

I think it's also important to realise that it's not exactly simple to 'sabotage' one.

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.

I think it's much easier to protect a few powerplants than some large huge grouping of solar panels...

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 .

In all seriousness, if we bury radioactive waste in the Simpson desert, away from any tribal land so the Abos don't whinge, who's it going to effect?

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...

 

[NonExistant]

There's no danger of solar panels damaging the environment...

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.