>>719861657 build a bunch of them? apart from maintaining the turbines and the surface of the mirror and general stuff like that there wouldn't be many on going costs apart from more profits from producing a shit ton of energy from the sun
>>719861607 maintenance. thing would need to be cleaned just like a solar cell. Speaking of which why would you use this method instead of photovoltaics? if you are gonna build a structure that big just build a solar farm
>>719861474 one giant parabola would be super exp[ensive to prouduce, but many small ones lined up seems to be feasible: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/a-tower-of-molten-salt-will-deliver-solar-power-after-sunset this one works even during the night
>>719862144 i don't understand why it wouldn't be efficient, on a much larger scale it would increase a lot more right? and the cost of maintaining a nuclear power plant and buying and disposing of fuel and shit would be negated
>>719862029 the more energy conversion you add to the process the greater the inefficiency. Going from Radiation to physical-chemical energy to mechanical energy to electrical energy would be much less efficient than PV of the same size. PV goes from Radiation direct to Electrical energy.
>>719862401 It wouldn't be efficient space-wise, it wouldn't be efficient resource-wise and it would have huge risks of it breaking down. You probably were one of those kids, who asked why we don't just install some streetlights on our solar farms to have them produce power even at night. Chances are you still one of those kids.
>>719862656 i wasn't saying i had some crazy idea or anything dude i just had an interesting thought and couldn't find anything on google cos im shit at researching apparently so i thought maybe someone could tell me something new
>>719862523 I think you quoted the wrong person. I was talking about solar paint, the stuff that's supposedly able to be applied like regular paint but also has the capability to catch solar power. Basically paintable solar panels. Fuckin cunts have been promising it's right around the corner for decades now but it's never actually been finished.
>>719862884 yea dude why don't we just like you know send a guy up there and have him just drop all the helium down here i mean hell we just need one of them fireman catching blankets and a nice pitcher to send to the moon then we got ourselves inifinite powa bruh
First of all the power output of a solar installation is nothing compared to a NPP. Second, the power output of a solar installation varies a lot (think at night --> no power production) While with a NPP, it does not vary.
>>719862621 Mirrors are used in solar towers, but they have an insanely low efficiency. You'd have to pave a huge area with mirrors and tower to come even close to 1 nuclear power plant. These solar towers are build in areas with a lot of sun-hours per day, near the equator, but thats not where the energy is needed and transporting that energy is a huge cost factor again.
- efficiency: quite small nuclear plant can produce so much energy as the most of wind, solar and hydro-plants combined - cost: again, ONE nuclear plant produces same amount of energy as most of solar plants -reliabilty: for solar plants to be effective, you need basically to fill several square miles with panels, that will need constant maintanance
one thing bad about nuclear energy and why it isn't the only one obvious solution to all our energy needs is almost impossible way to dispose waste, which takes millenia do stop being radioactive
if you just burry it deep in the ground (what exactly how many countries do atm) it have a risk in future with earthqukes or other cataclysm to endanger our future generation into alot of radiation, which would be very selfish from our side
>>719862029 It really wouldn't. A fairly low-end nuclear reactor produces around 200MW of electricity. The energy density of solar radiation is around 1.4kW/m^2, of which you can turn into electricity about 30%, so effectively 0.42 kW/m^2. This means you'd need to cover about half a square kilometre with mirrors to match that. Easier said than done. Mind you, this is for a low-end reactor - high-powered nuclear reactors can produce more than 1 GW at their peak - and this is just the peak production, the nuclear plant can push out that much energy pretty much 24/7 whereas your solar plant would do so for about 6 hours per day on average, unless it's cloudy.
Environmental concerns aside, it's really hard to compete with nuclear power when it comes to efficiency, raw power and carbon footprint.
>>719863135 Actually nuclear energy is not that expensive. I live in Belgium and we rely on nuclear energy. I agree with you that we need to search for alternatives. however solar energy depends on the presence of the sun. And in some areas (deserts, etc.) this is not a problem. The goal is to produce a lot of energy and store it, so we can you use it when the production is low.
Yeah but this is still not as efficeinet as a nuclear plant in 2015 it peaked at 30GWh in august. Output was also very high for june and july, but for the rest of the year output remained below 10 GWh per month.
The link above is to the US's largest nuclear plant which averaged 29,250 GWh throughout the year. Nuclear power is just better and more versatile right now
>>719862934 lol no i just went retard and read plant instead of paint. the paint idea is pretty cool though. i think before they had to use lead to make the efficiency viable but they had some advance recently where they could do it without.
>>719863522 We are out of fossil fuels, and storing nuclear waste is still a challenge. It will take up to 1 million years to be sure that the waste is safe. A possibility is to treat the waste so it decays faster, however these techniques are still not an experimental phase.
>>719863373 shit u seem to know what your talking about, i only thought of it in the sense that with the heat produced from a stupidly big parabola would boil the water making enough steam to power the shit outa some turbines
>>719863925 No, I'm not saying that I'm pro nuclear energy, we just can't live without it for now. One possibility I see is to rely on renewable energy ( it is the only option) and store the energy as hydrogen gas.
>>719863807 It's not like they're using kettle like steam in power generation. It has to be superheated, and hotter it is the better efficiency you get. Steam around 600 degrees celcius is being used now. With that temps you can produce significant amount of energy and your turbines won't corrode as much
>>719864120 It's because solar panels and wind turbines don't magically appear once you decide to drop the evil ways of fission and progress, you have to make them using factories and producing pollution, and you'll produce a whole lot of it before you have enough wind turbines to replace one nuclear power plant. Phrases like "kill the planet" are reliable signs to detect a person, who has bit the "go green" bait, I imagine you consider global warming real too.
>>719864120 Reliability. What do you do when it's cloudy(or the sun isn't up) and the wind isn't blowing very much? Export energy from the other side of the continent and waste huge amounts of energy, place extra stress on the electricity grid and make yourself much more vulnerable to any kind of disruption? Start your hugely polluting coal plants? Or rely on safe, reliable and cheap nuclear power?
Renewable energy sources might be the future, but they can't replace nuclear power at the moment.
>>719863418 yeah but this depends on how you judge efficiency. for me its not very efficient to cause a problem you have no solution to. what do you do with the waste? what about security? what if there are political problems in the region that supplies the uranium?
>>719864538 there were some ideas to export energy across a kindof supergrid from the sahara to europe. the idea was to use such high voltage that the losses were minimal even over those distances
>>719864954 >there were some ideas to export energy across a kindof supergrid from the sahara to europe. the idea was to use such high voltage that the losses were minimal even over those distances
Personally I think we should put a solar array into the orbit and beam electricity to earth. But, you know, that's just not going to happen at least for a few decades, so we're stuck with nuclear until then.
Firstly you'll need a humongous plant, which will include thousands of reflective parabolas.
Fluctuation of solar energy, on a daily and yearly basis.
Cleaning would impose a problem.
The efficiency can be relatively high, at the optimum time of the day as well as the year. You'll need to employ a sun tracking mechanism. Which will need a control system to correct the optimum sun-angle offset, making the system more complex.
In order to reduce the volume of the plant, you'll need evacuated tubes to minimize convective wind loss as well as radiation losses.
A much smaller Uranium Fission plant would produce the same energy as 2 million grams of oil for every gram of Uranium.
>>719861474 Inefficient energy conversion. We cannot harness the sun's power enough to make it worth it. Nuclear, in comparison, is completely opposite, you'd need only a little radioactive material, to generate large amounts of energy. Unless you want miles of solar panels. It just doesn't cut it.
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years!
>>719866333 Depends upon the storing medium. Flow batteries for instance use inexpensive organic fuel (fuel cells)
>>719866892 Still you'll need to reflect the maximum direct+diffused sunbeam falling upon your aperture since the sun moves east-west during day and a Siam of 15deg (I think) throughout the year. Therefore for optimum performance, you'll need a 2 axis tracking mechanism.
You'll find it in more detail in Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.