why not just use solar power?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by science man, Jun 30, 2011.

  1. If transmission losses would frequently happen, why haven't they happened with wired telephones? (but I'm excluding the financial problems)
    Well then, there you go. The UN should get to work on this.
    This would be a great back up plan if the satellite idea doesn't work.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    They're no big deal if you use DC transmission lines. But this makes the equipment at the receiving end more expensive - and can make it uneconomical to use the power in areas nearby the source, paradoxically.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Blue Marble !! Does that mean anything to you guys? I think they got something going . Attack dogs attack ! Anybody ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    They do happen with wired telephones. Or, did. These days the long-haul stuff is all fiber-optics and satellite relay. But it's important to keep in mind that there are many major differences between signal transmission (like a telephone) and power transmission. A bit of power loss in signal transmission isn't a big deal - you want the signal, not the power. In power transmission, it eats directly into your bottom line.
     
  8. oh ok well what about cosmictraveler's idea? Will that work?
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Just imagine terrorists getting the access codes to a microwave transmitting satellite then using it to beam that energy directly at some place other than the receiving dish. It would fry a city in minutes!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Imagine if the satellite was hit by space debris and knocked out of its position, there would be another catastrophe as well. There are many problems transmitting any type of microwave power supply from orbit so I really don't think that the military would ever let that idea get into space.
     
  10. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :bawl:
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    It's not impossible, but I think such things are still a long way from being practically feasible. It would be very expensive to construct, maintain and operate such large facilities in orbit, and there are a variety of throny issues with beaming the power back to Earth. The thing could even potentially run into problems with agreements against space weapons - it's essentially a giant space-powered death ray, if you point the power beam at something other than the receiver. It would also be pretty easy for an enemy to destroy with a few missiles, causing devastating damage to your economy.

    But if the day comes when we have space elevators providing cheap transport to orbit, then the construction/maintenance aspect starts to look more do-able. The power transmission and vulnerability (to attack and to space debris and the like) are more vexing issues.

    Another general point I'd make is that future power systems need to be diversified and resilient. It won't really do to solve everything with a single silver-bullet power source (if that's even possible), since that leaves you with a very vulnerable system. Some robust combination of various distributed power sources is preferable - some solar here, some wind there, etc.
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Solar power is the most scalable and cheapest alternative energy source once the manufacture infrastructure is in place. At the present rate of solar power pricing drop it will be as cheap as coal by 2020[1], and that is supposedly a pessimistic estimate[2]. Companies like nanosolar have been producing printed thin-film solar panels already at prices competitive with coal, so they claim.[3]

    But to handle a totally solar energy system we will need to rebuild our electric grid with extensive energy storage systems to make up for the intermittent power supply.[4] Perhaps electric cars could provide the grid load stabilization by charging when the grid allows them and even provide power back into the grid.[5]

    [1]:http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/2011...itive-with-coal-some-places-dropping-fast.htm
    [2]:http://techpulse360.com/2010/05/11/solar-costs-will-match-coal-in-10-years-pessimistic-study-says/
    [3]:http://www.nanosolar.com/
    [4]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
    [5]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
     
  13. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    There are a few people in the far north with stand alone power systems.

    1) There are expensive to install.
    2) They require regular maintenance.
    3) The deep cell batteries required for power storage eventually become a problem to dispose of.
    4) A back -up generator is needed for certain times of the year.
    5) The amount of energy these systems can produce falls far short of what our gluttonous lifestyle uses.

    How many of the following appliances do most people have?
    1) Electric heat or airconditioning, depending on climate.
    2) Hot running water.
    3) Cooking stove
    4) Refrigeration and/or deep freeze
    5) Indoor/outdoor lighting
    6) Clothes washer and dryer
    9) Entertainment mediums/communications/internet

    I haven't even touched the endless list of novelty toys.

    Here's a simple test:

    Add up the use of kilowatt hours in your own household and then do the math to determine and model the size and cost of a solar system that will run just your own household.

    In most cases, it's not possible.

    You will run out of space or money to set up your system and this is one of those things that doesn't get easier with scale, from a viable/and or cost efficient perspective, otherwise it would have been accomplished some time ago.

    We are too many greedy people, multiplying too fast, for the present solutions to maintain indefinitely.

    The first step should be far less consumption, even as we seek new energy sources and ever more efficient technologies.

    Just my two cents worth......thanks for allowing the rant.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    New Green Energy is awfully expensive up front. Just as light bulbs once cost a quarter when a loaf of bread cost a nickel. You have to BUY INTO new technologies.

    Not impossible- requires government support and public support as well and time to work.
     
  15. ok so basically the price needs to match that of coal and then maybe the government will start working on cosmictraveler's idea.
     
  16. you seem mislead to me because you don't take into account that there're already certain places that run off of solar power (such as my school)
     
  17. going back to where we left off about electronic cars and the argument that they take a long time to charge, for the time being until battery life increases, what if you gave them multiple batteries for the road trip. That way, at rest stops, you can charge what has been depleted and run off what hasn't been depleted.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Doesn't help.
    It would be better to have one large battery because two small ones just make you stop more frequently, and thus charging would take even more time.
     
  19. how so? What if the car had the option of being able to switch between batteries? Just like how trucks switch between gas tanks.
     
  20. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    What we need is solar + hydrogen. Converting excess electricity (when the Sun is shining, but nobody feels like switching on the lights) into hydrogen (by using electrolysis on water), and then burning the hydrogen later when we need it. The process causes you to lose 3/4 of the initial electricity, so you only get 1/4 the normal amount, but that's 1/4 of SOMETHING instead of 100% of NOTHING.




    You're ignoring economy of scale. Photovoltaic is similar to microprocessor technologies. If a godzillion people were buying them, so huge factories could be built with highly optimized assembly line type processes, that "prohibitive" price would drop quite a bit.

    It's just like how owning a big, cumbersome, backpack sized cell phone used to be a sign of wealth once.

    Also, we only want them to last 15-20 years (or less). That way the manufacturers get repeat sales. It also guarantees that when the next generation of better cells comes out, the old ones will have worn out and people will be ready to buy the new, more efficient ones.
     
  21. This would be a good idea if it could as cost efficient as charging a battery. (meaning the hydrogen part of the idea)
     

Share This Page