quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
and nevada-ians keep bitching about Yucca mountain.
I don't see you starting a petition to get your local lawmakers to volunteer your backyard for nuclear waste storage. If another set of mountains weren't in the way you could see Yucca Mountain from Las Vegas.
quote:
Verily, Snoota doth proclaim:
I don't see you starting a petition to get your local lawmakers to volunteer your backyard for nuclear waste storage. If another set of mountains weren't in the way you could see Yucca Mountain from Las Vegas.
I offered but my neighbors are such whiners. 
quote:
Snoota had this to say about pies:
I don't see you starting a petition to get your local lawmakers to volunteer your backyard for nuclear waste storage. If another set of mountains weren't in the way you could see Yucca Mountain from Las Vegas.
That's because MY backyard is a repository for Cow, Horse, Pig and chicken shit two months out of the year while the farmers here keep YOUR ass in Las Vegas fed.
quote:
x--Delphi AegisO-('-'Q) :
Plus, you know, shooting trans-lead elements into the SUN is a good f'n idea. Let me tell you why a star collapses! Because eventually, it fuses all it's shit into lead, which it cannot fuse further! So, shooting heavy (Even radioactive!) elements into the sun is not a good f'n idea.
Delphi, that's pretty stupid even for you.
The accumulated waste products of all humanity for a millenium, if fired into the sun, would have all the impact of a grain of sand bouncing off the windshield of a car going 30 mph.
The entire planet, if thrown into the sun, would be more like a grasshopper bouncing off the windshield of a car going 30 mph.
Except it wouldn't bounce off - it would vaporize into lighter elements while still in the corona. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 12:12 AM.
quote:
Naimah got served! Naimah got served!
I think that may still be scaled improperly.
If the sun is indeed 1.3 million times the earth's size, the sun in that picture would have to be a circle of an area of 1.3 million pixels for the earth to be one. Say, I dunno, a .gif of like 1400x1400.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
The sun is 1,350,000 km in diameter, roughly 100x wider than the earth.
Essentially, the image is pretty close to scale...give or take a few 100 km. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 12:49 AM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The earth is 12,751 km in diameter.The sun is 1,350,000 km in diameter, roughly 100x wider than the earth.
Essentially, the image is pretty close to scale...give or take a few 100 km.
That's what I get for talking before doing my math.
Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 12:53 AM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about the Spice Girls:
When you really get down to it, there's no such thing as a truely renewable energy source
Sure there is. If you burn a lump of coal to harness its energy, you'll have lost your lump of coal. But if you use a well-lit solar panel to harness the energy of sunlight, you still have a well-lit solar panel.
quote:
x--PvednesO-('-'Q) :
Sure there is. If you burn a lump of coal to harness its energy, you'll have lost your lump of coal. But if you use a well-lit solar panel to harness the energy of sunlight, you still have a well-lit solar panel.
Until the sun explodes.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about (_|_):
Until the sun explodes.
The immortal floaty Asimov minds will farm hydrogen. Otherwise, don't be ridiculous.
quote:
Snoota wrote this stupid crap:
I don't see you starting a petition to get your local lawmakers to volunteer your backyard for nuclear waste storage. If another set of mountains weren't in the way you could see Yucca Mountain from Las Vegas.
If it weren't for incidental blockage, the curvature of the Earth, and the limits of my eyesight, I could see Nevada from my house!
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Pvednes spewed forth this undeniable truth:
The immortal floaty Asimov minds will farm hydrogen. Otherwise, don't be ridiculous.
It takes energy to create solar cells. Solar cells wear out over time. Thus even if we consider the sun infinite we will eventually run out of the energy required to make solar cells.
quote:
Naimah Model 2000 was programmed to say:
It takes energy to create solar cells. Solar cells wear out over time. Thus even if we consider the sun infinite we will eventually run out of the energy required to make solar cells.
Want to think about that a moment and then revise it, or maybe abandon it completely, before I answer that?
Or are you making the same error of timeframe that Maradon was, Mr Immortal Floaty-brain? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 09:07 AM.
quote:
Pvednes enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
So...you're saying that we should not build solar power plants to enjoy the free energy we get from the sun, because we eventually would have to rebuild them, then?Or are you making the same error of timeframe that Maradon was, Mr Immortal Floaty-brain?
No we are saying not to build them because they are inefficient and can't provide enough energy to be anything except a novelty.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Punky Brewster:
No we are saying not to build them because they are inefficient and can't provide enough energy to be anything except a novelty.
Keep in mind that while inefficient, all the cost is in their construction and maintainence, as the energy is free from the sun. Plus, current designs compare quite favorably to other forms of power plants in output. For example, the Solar Tower that's to be built in the desert is to have an output of 200MW, to cost $800m. Also being built is a 750MW gas power plant for $2b, and that one has to pay for its fuel.
Which is worse, an inefficient energy harvest, or letting all that energy go to waste? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 09:29 AM.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Duck Tales:
So...you're saying that we should not build solar power plants to exploit the plentiful free energy we get from the sun, because we eventually would have to rebuild them, then?Or are you making the same error of timeframe that Maradon was, Mr Immortal Floaty-brain?
If you want to talk in the current time frame the Nuclear is pretty much infinite as well.
Fun fact: To supply the entire united states with solar power using 13.5% efficient solar cells you would have to cover an area the size of 73 Californias.
quote:
Naimah thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
If you want to talk in the current time frame the Nuclear is pretty much infinite as well.Fun fact: To supply the entire united states with solar power using 13.5% efficient solar cells you would have to cover an area the size of 73 Californias.
I'm talking in the long term, to very long term, so far as human civilization goes--which does not span the next five billion years, no matter what Maradon or Issac Asimov say.
For that matter, solar power plants don't operate by covering whole continents in photovoltaic cells. Solar powered telephones/calculators/etc use photovoltaic cells, but solar power plants don't. Solar power plants work in a very similar manner to a nuclear power plant or coal fired power plant, in that they use a steam turbine. A nuclear power plant uses superheated steam to drive a turbine, a coal power plant uses steam to drive a turbine, and a concentrating solar power plant uses steam to drive a turbine. Not very imaginative, but it works in all cases.
quote:
Naimah wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Ok lets say we do go about using solar power. In 2002 we used 3,880,352,000,000 kWh of electricity. That's in the United States alone. Not using any fossil fuels would drive that up even further because heating and cars would have to be driven using the same plants. If we were to take all of that energy out of the atmosphere, I wonder what would happen. The energy from the sun isn't being 'wasted' currently it's helping keep the planet nice and toasty.
While that is a red herring, and completely irrelevant, I'll deal with it anyway, because it continues the theme of a real problem with scale.
We get 17.3e16 watts from the sun. The energy needs of the entire human race, in all forms, not just electricity, is around 9.60 terawatts.
1.73e17 - 9.60e12 = 1.73e17, rounded to significant figures. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 10:26 AM.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about (_|_):
If it weren't for incidental blockage, the curvature of the Earth, and the limits of my eyesight, I could see Nevada from my house!
There's a little bit of a difference there, junior.
quote:
Snoota had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
There's a little bit of a difference there, junior.
I might get Tahoe on me. That would be icky.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Punky Brewster:
While that is a red herring, and completely irrelevant, I'll deal with it anyway, because it continues the theme of a real problem with scale.We get 17.3e16 watts from the sun. The energy needs of the entire human race, in all forms, not just electricity, is around 9.60 terawatts.
1.73e17 - 9.60e12 = 1.73e17, rounded to significant figures.
How much of that energy actually gets to the surface, where a solar planet would be though? Alot of the energy is dispersed in the upper layers of the atmosphere.
Also in the coming years as India, China, and eventually Africa continue to modernize power consumption is going to increase dramaticly.
But dont powerplant generators that rely on coal power just use the coal to power the big motors that turn the turbines that generate the electricity?
Can't they make an electric motor instead of a coal powered one to turn the generators and then hotlink that to the generator itself so that a coal/oil engine is only needed to prime the turbine which can then power electric motor that powers it? The power generator should turn out enough excess power to spare enough to power its engine thats turning it. Right?
I know I did that on a much much smaller scale with RC motors.
I took one of those bike tire generators (You know the old school ones that powered lights on your bicycle as you rode it when the wheels turned the generator) and I rigged it up to an RC car, hooked onto one of the wheels, and then hotwired it to the card motor. Then all I had to do was use a 9V to jumpstart the car, and the spinning wheels turned the generator which provided power to the car, which of course continued spinning the tires, which powered the generator and so on. As long as I didn't stop for extended periods of time, it had unlimited power.
Or if that wont work on the largescale for big powerplants, wouldn't it at least be feasible on the smaller scale making household size units to power individual homes, and therefore taking the load off of the main powerplants, and in turn using less resources?
Like I said, I dunno if any of that makes any sense, or works or whatever... But I did do it on the small scale, and it always intrigued me.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
How much of that energy actually gets to the surface, where a solar planet would be though? Alot of the energy is dispersed in the upper layers of the atmosphere.Also in the coming years as India, China, and eventually Africa continue to modernize power consumption is going to increase dramaticly.
I really think you should abandon this argument. He already showed why it is silly based on the use of sig figs. Even if power needs increased ten-fold, it wouldn't be that big of a difference. Furthermore, if this would "cool" the earth, (it would not) that would be to our advantage since the planet is heating up as a result of human activities.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Faelynn LeAndris absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I always had a thought, which probably makes no sense whatsoever, but then again I dont much about how they work.But dont powerplant generators that rely on coal power just use the coal to power the big motors that turn the turbines that generate the electricity?
Can't they make an electric motor instead of a coal powered one to turn the generators and then hotlink that to the generator itself so that a coal/oil engine is only needed to prime the turbine which can then power electric motor that powers it? The power generator should turn out enough excess power to spare enough to power its engine thats turning it. Right?
I know I did that on a much much smaller scale with RC motors.
I took one of those bike tire generators (You know the old school ones that powered lights on your bicycle as you rode it when the wheels turned the generator) and I rigged it up to an RC car, hooked onto one of the wheels, and then hotwired it to the card motor. Then all I had to do was use a 9V to jumpstart the car, and the spinning wheels turned the generator which provided power to the car, which of course continued spinning the tires, which powered the generator and so on. As long as I didn't stop for extended periods of time, it had unlimited power.
Or if that wont work on the largescale for big powerplants, wouldn't it at least be feasible on the smaller scale making household size units to power individual homes, and therefore taking the load off of the main powerplants, and in turn using less resources?
Like I said, I dunno if any of that makes any sense, or works or whatever... But I did do it on the small scale, and it always intrigued me.
That thought violates several very basic laws of physics, in that it's a self-licking ice cream cone. The laws of thermodynamics specifically forbid those.
There has to be a constant input of power to keep the turbine moving to power the generator, because energy will be lost to heat in the form of friction, among other things, causing it to slow down and lose efficiency over time.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Startup costs are expensive, yes, but this type of solar setup would help take the pressure off the big power plants. In a supplementary role, solar power is an excellent way to reduce demand on coal and oil. I guess it will reach a point where coal and oil will be so expensive that this type of solution makes economic sense.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Bloodsage wrote:
That thought violates several very basic laws of physics, in that it's a self-licking ice cream cone. The laws of thermodynamics specifically forbid those.There has to be a constant input of power to keep the turbine moving to power the generator, because energy will be lost to heat in the form of friction, among other things, causing it to slow down and lose efficiency over time.
Well like I said, I'm not very knowledgable, which is why it was just a thought and Im not some engineer. 
From what you just said though, keeping in mind I dunno these laws you speak of, so its probably something very simple that I dont know heh, what messes up in the configuration?
If using gear ratios, like say on a tenspeed, to maximum effeciency where you get maximum output for little effort.
Say you have Motor A which turns Turbine A. Turbine A in turn powers Motor A and generates power to Capacitor A, and residential. And you have Coal Engine A which is used to Prime Motor A for a limited time.
And say Turbine A puts out X Amount of Power, and Motor A requires Y Amount of Power to run, and Turbine A also sends Z amount of power to Capacitor A, and the rest to residential. Y is 1/3 of X, Z is 1/3 of X, and Residential recieves 1/3. So Turbine A gives Motor A, Y Power, and Capacitor A, Z power, then how does it break down as long as Turbine A can maintain X Power, which it can as long as Motor A gets Y power. Since X-Y-Z=1/3 to Residential more or less, with the stored power over time in Capacitor A as backup if nessesary.
And even if it does degrade over time, it will still take a while and you still have the coal engines to Prime them back up to speed, you are just using them far less often, and only to Prime them back up to speed.
PS Dont take this as an argument against your knowledge, I'm genuinely curious. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 10:38 PM.
You just can't have free energy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
The thing is that every moving part wastes energy, as does each change of state or transfer. Additionally, it's simply not possible to create energy from nothing--you can only get back from a turbine, for example, the energy that went into turning it in the first place, and that's in a perfect fantasy world. So the best one could do would be that the system powered itself only. . .except that the losses above mean that a constant input is needed to keep it going.You just can't have free energy.
Okay. So how does it work on the smaller scale as in what I did with the RC setup? That actually worked. It was able to power the car, and lightsetup pretty much indefinitely as long as I didn't stop moving for very long.
So does it just apply on the larger scale, concidering smaller examples work? Or is there something different taking place one the small engine, generator, capcitor setup that doesnt happen in a larger execution?
And cant the problem of the Amount of Power exherted being less that the amount of power output be eleviated with like the gear setups. Like, in the bike example. If I switch gears on say a 10 speed, depending on which gear Im in I can exhert the same amount of power or force, but get more power out of the action that I would in a lesser setting. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 07-27-2005 at 11:07 PM.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Duck Tales:
Okay. So how does it work on the smaller scale as in what I did with the RC setup? That actually worked. It was able to power the car, and lightsetup pretty much indefinitely as long as I didn't stop moving for very long.So does it just apply on the larger scale, concidering smaller examples work? Or is there something different taking place one the small engine, generator, capcitor setup that doesnt happen in a larger execution?
And cant the problem of the Amount of Power exherted being less that the amount of power output be eleviated with like the gear setups. Like, in the bike example. If I switch gears on say a 10 speed, depending on which gear Im in I can exhert the same amount of power or force, but get more power out of the action that I would in a lesser setting.
In the case of the RC car some part of the system was probably storing energy that was slowly being bled off similar to a fly wheel.
quote:
Naimah attempted to be funny by writing:
In the case of the RC car some part of the system was probably storing energy that was slowly being bled off similar to a fly wheel.
Only the Capcitor I put in it. Thats why I put it in there, to store excess power.
I could power the car, and lights, and assuming the case of bleed off is valid, it still had enough power left over for storage.
Which falls back to the point before if its the case of lost efficency over time. If it does lose power efficiency over time, it still takes a while, and you still have the coal engine to use intermediately to bring it back up to speed. Which at the very least works in a supplemental capacity since it is use far less often than it is now.
There's a renewable power source 
quote:
So quoth Kinanik:
We need gravity power plants.There's a renewable power source
Ya, that's basically what a tidal plant is.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Only the Capcitor I put in it. Thats why I put it in there, to store excess power.
....
The Cap was Acting as a Battery, The only reason that it seemed to go for ever, was I bet you put a bigass Cap in the system that stored a shit load more juice than what it normaly used.
As for your thing with the bicyle gear, what the gears do is change the mechanical advantage you get. If you look at low gears, you can push them much easier, but ou need to push the pedels around many, many more times to get the wheels to turn alot. The higher gears you need to push really hard down on them, but you will end up turn the wheels more in one turn of the pedel. What you are doing is altering how force you are applying over a distance. But when you break it down, you are putting the same amount of energy into the system, tho only thing that changes is how it comes out as work
--Pved, before you discount Gas and oil plants, Bio Fuels might be come a cost effective alterntive. Shit I know state side the biggest siudetrack to Bio-fuels for cars happens to be the oil industery(More precisely the Distribution end) and that Stuff like Soy Deisel cost more to buy, but if they keep jacking the price of Oil, it my become viable.
