NationStates Jolt Archive

While this proposal was created with a good intention, has the author taken into consideration the potential environmental effects of blocking the oceans from receiving sunlight?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you a dumbass? This isn't Star Trek!

Solar Collectors

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Uranium Mining Proposed by: The Imperial Technate
Description: This Resolution calls for the construction of "Solar Collectors", these are the efficent use of solar panels without taking up living space of the world. There are two types of solar collectors:
1. Land based solar collectors will be on the roofs of Skyscrapers and other large buildings, then this also will encourage people to put solar pannels on the roof of their houses.
2. Sea based solar collectors are rafts of solar panels that are connected to the main land via cables, therefore taking up the sea that covers most of our planet rather than living space.

These solar collectors maybe improved by any government of the world if it makes this idea more efficent.
This wide scale use of solar power may not be able to power the nation alone but it will reduce the need to use fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Approvals: 21 (The Imperial Technate, TrancePort, Sulon, Free Minds Enslaved, Zurdos, Scyphia, Phuckuvia, Bataslavia, Chanchos, Tomlandia, Dionalka, Giant Atomic Insects, Goobergunchia, UmbrellaCorp, Whats it to you, Ariddia, Qaaolchoura, Stommpygod, Gemfish, Boudica, Hewhocaresnot)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 99 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 3 2003

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Actually, as long as the solar collectors were out aways from the land, they probably wouldn't make much difference - most of the ocean is pretty infertile, and referred to by some people as 'blue desert' - the fertile bits are generally close to the land, where you have run-off bringing in all sorts of nutrients. So I don't know the exact figure, but you might want to start these rafts about 50 miles out - which would make tethering them to the land difficult, but then there are other ways of securing their position.

Still, I think that 'covering' the ocean would be a bad idea. You'd need to space them out, perhaps by having 200 foot squares arranged in a checkerboard fashion, which would give plenty of room for whales to breath and for light to get into the ocean so that the critters can see. Phytoplankton wouldn't be an issue, since they're close to the land. Shipping lanes would also have to be avoided. But it could work, in a limited fashion.

Actually the best would be tidal generators. They're like underwater windmills. They run on the constant flow of the tides. Any other source of energy will either run out of its fuel or have days when it does not generate energy (i.e. days that aren't windy or sunny). Unless someone were to destroy the moon, this could be a very dependable energy source except for the fact that they arent quite as efficient as other energy sources and they have to tear up the ocean floor. Oh well, its a minor price to pay for constant, out of the way energy sources.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Any grid which has a wide enough base should be able to compensate for temporary loss of sunlight in a particular location.
The oceans provide ample space for such a wide base.

Nuclear Power that is the true power

Erm.....so what's gonna happen to these 'sea based solar collectors' when the next tropical storm or hurrricane or typhoon decides to form? Yeah, lets send trillions and trillions of dollars down the drain with no gain.

While it might be important to help develop alternative energy sources, this proposal is clearly ill-considered. My only consolation is that it ain't gonna make it to quorum.

You want a pollutant free fuel? A fuel that doesn't produce any harmful emmisions in to the atmosphere, well guess what it exists and it's called bio-fuel. Created from oil seed rape and sugar beet giving you bio-petrol and bio-diesel both of which can be used in any motor vehicle without any modification being needed. No harmful gases coming from cars and other vehicles cuts pollution greatly plus it creates an extra market for agriculture.
Tell me the down side with the idea.

Let's put the machines in pods and hook them up to a virtual world!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

You want a pollutant free fuel? A fuel that doesn't produce any harmful emmisions in to the atmosphere, well guess what it exists and it's called bio-fuel. Created from oil seed rape and sugar beet giving you bio-petrol and bio-diesel both of which can be used in any motor vehicle without any modification being needed. No harmful gases coming from cars and other vehicles cuts pollution greatly plus it creates an extra market for agriculture.
Tell me the down side with the idea.

Aren't bio-fuels hydrocarbons? If so, then when you burn them, you release greenhouse gasses.

You don't really need that much area to power the world on solar energy. From what I understand, even at current efficiencies, the entire world could be powered by collectors based solely in Australian deserts.

It's really a moot point for us because we use hypermatter anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

You use oil seed rape to derive a fuel you don't actually burn the seed it's self, so no they are not hydrocarbons and don't pollute.

You don't really need that much area to power the world on solar energy. From what I understand, even at current efficiencies, the entire world could be powered by collectors based solely in Australian deserts.


Not true if you look at the numbers.

The US alone (in 2002) consumed 97 quadrillion BTU/hour (9.7*10^16 BTU/h) which is approximately equal to 2.85*10^16 Watts.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/infocardnew.html>

The amount of sunlight reaching the earth ranges from 150 W/m^2 (in cloudy places like Syracuse) to 250 W/m^2 in places like Nevada and Arizona which are fairly cloudless year-round.

So, doing a basic calculation, in order to supply the US with enough energy, we would need 1.14*10^11 Square Kilometers covered with photovoltaic cells, all of which converted ALL the energy reaching the surface to useful energy (which in itself is not true if you consider that most photovoltaic cells only harness 10-15% of the energy that reaches the surface).

That's rather huge, considering the world itself has only 1.48*10^8 square kilometers of land on it. <http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001763.html>

So, the short answer is no. Solar energy as it currently stands, is simply too inefficient to generate enough power to keep us all happy.

Tidal energy needs a lot more research to become very usefull. Only at places which have an extreem tide this is at this moment useful (the British/French Channel for example) Therefore a resolution on research and development towards new sources of energy would be way more effective than use the current ones.

The same goes for solar energy. You may all have seen the Solar Power Race in Australia a couple of weeks ago. The max speed of vehicles was around 130 km/h. So a real solution to the problem doesn't this give us either. Also storing the energy in batteries and so on is nearly impossible because batteries have 1) a limited amount you can recharge them 2) really bad for the environment 3) Really really heavy. Solar energy on the other hand is one of the most promissing options.

<i>Aren't bio-fuels hydrocarbons? If so, then when you burn them, you release greenhouse gasses.</I> Yes, these are Hydrocarbons BUT for each tree you burn you plant a new one. So the average greenhouse gasses you burn is won back by the tree you plant (since trees build their cells from CO2) It's Greenhouse gass neutral so to say.

So a resolution on either more research to greenhouse gass free fuels (solar and so on), hydro energy and so on or to use biofuels (wood, alcohol etc) would be more realisitic. It doesn't exclude an entire industry at once and gives time for them to change their ways AND gives a boost to new industries. Meanwhile you would still bring down green house gasses

In name of the Empire of Upperlands,
Minister LochNESS

Sorry, tripple post :( Not really what I wanted. Excuse me for it :oops:

Indeed New Clarkhall, energy usage is extremely high in the Western world. It's predicted the US will run out of it's own oil sources (except those in Alaska natural reservates) within 30 years.

When I say bio-fuel I do not mean peat bog,chicken waste,trees or anything other then a fuel derived from oil seed rape not the seed it's self!

It doesn't release greenhouse gases! Understand that it is completely eco-friendly, does not require any form of engine modification and is available right now in the real-world!

Do you get it now? If not then your to damn obtuse for me to be discussing such a matter with you.

Oil seed rape is for sex-crazed fleas on acid. I think what you mean is rape seed oil, aka canola oil. Any fuel made from rape seed oil and/or sugar beets would be carbon-based and its combustion products would include, at the very least, carbon dioxide and water. In fact there is NO combustible fuel which does not produce greenhouse gasses; even hydrogen does so, as H20 is a greenhouse gas. And in the conditions obtaining in internal combustion engines, no fuel is really clean-burning; any fuel but hydrogen will produce carbon monoxide, and even hydrogen will produce oxides of nitrogen, because the nitrogen is in the atmosphere.