NationStates Jolt Archive

says one scientist. Others say he's producing enough biomass to fuel the world:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070726/sc_livescience/studyrenewableenergynotgreen

Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.


Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel’s analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.

I think he needs some solar roofing tiles jammed up his ass. :)

Yeah, because those are the only forms of renewable energy.

Yeah, because those are the only forms of renewable energy.

It is the only form being realistically pursued by the US.

You could always put the solar panels in earth orbit, and beam the power down to rectennas.

You would take up relatively little land, and produce power far more efficiently than you could with solar panels on the ground.

It would also be green. What's not to like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

It is a renewable energy source, zero emission, and generates no waste. However, the costs of construction are very high, and SPS will not be able to compete with conventional sources (at current energy prices) unless at least one of the following conditions is met:

* Low launch costs can be achieved

Not there yet, because we're using the stupid space shuttle. But we could, you know. We're not fucking stupid all around the globe.


* A space-based manufacturing industry develops that is capable of building solar power satellites in orbit, using off-Earth materials

Well, the US and China plan to go to the Moon and build a permanent Moon base. So we'll have that capability by 2012.
* Conventional energy costs increase
* A determination is made that the disadvantages of fossil fuel use are so large they must be substantially replaced.

We're already there for the last two.

It is the only form being realistically pursued by the US.

Means nothing to me.

You could always put the solar panels in earth orbit, ---- What's not to like?
Quite a lot actually. This would be horrendously expensive and would heat the earth considerably if used at any significant level.

There will be considerable absorption and dispersal of energy by the atmosphere (especially if a cloud happens by) causing global warming. Congratulations, you have cut out the whole 'greenhouse' effect and just decided to heat it directly.

Not there yet, because we're using the stupid space shuttle. But we could, you know. We're not fucking stupid all around the globe. The cost is not because of the space shuttle - it is very expensive to put anything in orbit even using 'cheap' rockets. Putting something in orbit is not that simple.

Well, the US and China plan to go to the Moon and build a permanent Moon base. So we'll have that capability by 2012.
No, we wont. Not even close. All that a moon base will do is provide basic living quarters and lab space for visiting astronauts. The moon is not a great source of material - it is composed of fairly worthless rock. You lack the necessary raw components to construct just about anything, not to mention developing a manufacturing system on the moon would be neither cheap or easy.

We're already there for the last two.
Not by a long shot - energy costs may be slightly higher than they were a few years ago, but you are seriously underestimating the scale of developing orbital solar collectors.

When you are discussing putting huge solar arrays in orbit every couple of years (the solar panels would need to be replaced every so often - not to mention repairs and maintenance), you are talking an enormous expenditure. It goes far beyond a couple dollars a barrel more for oil.

Means nothing to me.

It will when we bomb your country to plant thousands of acres of corn and soybean.

Geothermal, FTW!

It is certainly possible to wreck the environment while pursuing "renewable" energy; but I don't believe it is necessarily so.

It will when we bomb your country to plant thousands of acres of corn and soybean.
No war for soil?

It will when we bomb your country to plant thousands of acres of corn and soybean.

You win the thread.

Wow, where to begin... I guess he forgot offshore wind power, the increasing size and capacity of wind turbines (up to 5 MW/turbine as of 2007), geothermal energy, solar PV tape on houses and surfaces, increases in solar panel efficiency, tidal power, solar heating and all the other sources in development. All of them not only increase the energy density of these sources but also reduce their potential environmental impact. Oops, I guess he forgot that.

A shill for the nuclear power industry (which I do support wholeheartedly) is still a shill no matter what way you cut it. He should be ashamed at parroting such outlandishly distorted data, especially under the veneer of science. This study is embarrassingly disingenuous and reflects a badly biased and unscientific analysis of the modern renewable energy sector. I mean, honestly, what sense does it make to determine the environmental impact of a power source based upon energy density alone? That utterly disregards all of the facts surrounding energy sources and their environmental impact...

Let's compare:
Uranium Mine (http://www.grahamdefense.org/Images/key-lake.jpg)
Coal Mine (http://www.3dnworld.com/users/69/images/Coal_mine_aerial_large.jpg)
Oil Sands (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg)

Versus:
Solar Plant (http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/12/20/mn_solar.jpg)
Wind Farm (http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/photos/images/windFarm4.jpg)
Offshore Wind Farm (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/346022506_c5f11e9563.jpg)

I think I can make my decision about which one is better for the environment.

I think it's quite simple that using finite fossil fuels and nuclear power are far more dangerous to the environment and us than renewable energy sources. Unless we go back to mud huts i don't think anyone has a better alternative. :rolleyes:

Igloos anyone? :D

Quite a lot actually. This would be horrendously expensive and would heat the earth considerably if used at any significant level.

There will be considerable absorption and dispersal of energy by the atmosphere (especially if a cloud happens by) causing global warming. Congratulations, you have cut out the whole 'greenhouse' effect and just decided to heat it directly.


Wrong. The correct frequency of microwaves is extremely efficient at penetrating the atmosphere without heating it.

Wrong. The correct frequency of microwaves is extremely efficient at penetrating the atmosphere without heating it.
Have you ever tried shooting microwaves through atmosphere and clouds? Atmosphere isn't just a fancy name for the area you know.

Maybe you should read up on the subject. Even with clouds, it's not a relevant heating of the atmosphere.

The DoD has also produced lasers that penetrate atmosphere (even clouds) without thermal blooming or significant transfer of energy to the atmosphere.
I'm not even going to start in on how irrelevant that is...

Have you ever tried shooting microwaves through atmosphere and clouds? Atmosphere isn't just a fancy name for the area you know.

Maybe you should read up on the subject. Even with clouds, it's not a relevant heating of the atmosphere.

The DoD has also produced lasers that penetrate atmosphere (even clouds) without thermal blooming or significant transfer of energy to the atmosphere.

The Airborne Laser is one such product. The frequency was selected specifically to prevent this sort of problem.

So - we can beam that energy wherever we like.

I would prefer that we use the laser instead of the microwave, as a means of energy transfer from an orbital solar station.

That way, we could use it as a weapon of mass destruction, with a continuous gigawatt-class beam that would remain on for days at a time, incinerating target areas at will.

Finally a scientist has the guts to come out and say what we engineers and estimators have known for years. You need 6 ping pong tables worth pv cells to power a car and 12x the deck area of a cargo ship to run its engines (the Emma Mersk would only get about 8% power under ideal conditions if its entire deck were covered). When wind speed drops by half the energy windmill produces drops by 88% and this can't be solved with a better windmill, the wind actually contains that much less power. Geothermal hotspots used to heat water in pipes are rare and get depleted over time. Fusion reactors are not capable of producing more power than they consume now and running to the moon and back would probably eat up whatever you got over break-even so that's not an option.

You have to look at what uses less to provide more, the better value. The most compact source of lots of power that also doesn't pollute is fission but nobody wants that because some dumb commies decided to see how long a reactor would keep working after a good portion of the coolant was drained.

Geothermal, FTW!

Artificially created geothermal systems are very good.

“We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape,” Ausubel told LiveScience.

Rape?

There are also parabolic solar systems, one which uses focussed light on a small solar panel and the other focusses light on a water pipe to run a steam turbine.

Rape?

If he wants to see the land raped, look at his beloved uranium mines, or the open-pit coal mines and oil sands with their dead land and toxin-laden water devoid of life...not the wind farms that support varied wildlife and functioning natural ecosystems on the ground between the turbines.

I support limited nuclear power, mainly for space travel.

I support limited nuclear power, mainly for space travel.

I do too, but not as the primary source of power. It should be used as a stepping stone to bigger and better sources of power, not the endgame of our energy needs.

I do too, but not as the primary source of power. It should be used as a stepping stone to bigger and better sources of power, not the endgame of our energy needs.

I am just talking about rocket motors.

Until we get some kind of effective fusion based (probably an fusion explosion one) drive the most effective rocket motor for large cargo transportation will probably be a high enriched uranium thermal system.

DoD has also produced lasers that penetrate atmosphere (even clouds) without thermal blooming or significant transfer of energy to the atmosphere.
That very well settles it then! We have been worried about nothing.