Archives > Real Life Discussion
Quite possibly the most amazing TED talk ever...
Elyxiatic:
--- Quote from: Bam on April 15, 2013, 11:13:15 am ---very interesting
--- End quote ---
^ This. I watched the video.
Ts Stormrage:
Maths, you're missing out on a couple of key new energy sources...
The hydro electric part you completely miss out on energy taken out of waves, from either on coastal installations or those snakes you see on out to sea or underwater turbines that take advantage of tidal power.
The photovoltaic (or other solar energy utilisers, such as boiling towers) methods are still expensive, yes, but the cost of it has halved roughly every 8 years since 1980. On top of that, the materials used require so little maintainence that a guy with a bucket of water and a squeegy can do it.
There's an organisation/consortium going on right now known as Desertec, which aims to turn parts of the Sahara desert into a giant solar powerplant, meeting the energy needs of all North-African countries and plenty to spare to power large portions of Europe.
See this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg/1280px-DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg
You also completely miss geothermal and nuclear alternatives for uranium.
Like this one:
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
China is very big on using these types of reactors to power their cities. Just as they are the the leading nation on windpower. In 6 years time they managed to increase their MWh output from windpower alone by 30 times to 70% that of ALL of the EU generates (and this includes nations big on windpower such as Germany, Denmark, Spain, and the U.K.)
EVEN the U.S. is showing a healthy growth in that industry, scaling up their MWh production by a factor of 5, to produce now more than twice what Germany does.
And yes, there are limits to where you can place these turbines, but then again, oil isn't in the ground everywhere either.
And on biomass you have to define what you are refering to:
Wood and plants? Biogas from landfill and municipal waste? Or, what I'm suspecting, biofuels from stuff like sugar cane and corn.
Biofuels come in 3 generations, each of which have their origins in South America.
The first uses the sugars in crops and converts them into bioalcohol (really this is just making liquer), and is controversial due to the food vs fuel dilemma.
The second generation is currently the most viable one and IS used on a large scale. Cellulisic material from non-food crops and waste materials such as sawdust, yard trimmings, dried dung, and agricultural waste. The difficulty is breaking the cellulose down. Grazing livestock (and we've just come full circle) does this in a very slow working enzyme process to turn it into glucose.
Generation 2.5 biofuels and biodiesels come from fungi who turn cellulose into medium and long chained hydrocarbons.
Third generation biofuels utilise algae to turn CO2 directly into biodiesel.
I'm not all that big on biomass, personally. It's a nice stop-gap, but it is, as we dutch call it, mopping up with the tap still running... It only takes CO2 out of the air to pt it back in within the year.
In the end; ALL power is solar power, as it drives the winds, maks the plants grow, etc etc. The only exception is geothermal, which utilises the heat in the earth's crust, something that comes from radioactive decay deep within the earth, and tectonic friction.
That said, the earth recieves enough energy from the sun every hour right now to sustain us for over a year. The math is there.
Rachellove9:
Population control in any way is just wrong.
Giving into a government that wants to legally kill, stop, or control what people do in the way of family is terrible.
You even slightly suggesting that it is a good thing makes me question if you want us to practice the ideology of antihumanism.
My post might be off-topic but just the same the belief that the human race is a horde of rats whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that measures are necessary to constrain population to save the Earth is morally wrong.
USA gets involved in Africa and sends them stuff to help control population by way of birth control.
Underlying though they are sending them a death sentence in that what they send is an increase chance to get aides and pass it.
Also the shots they provide for the birth control give them a much higher risk of death from breast cancer.
I financially support many missions to Africa and I hate what happens when they trust the wrong people/government.
I will watch the second video soon when I can give it my attention.
Ts Stormrage:
I'll give you a chance to modify your response after you read this thread again...
I never mentioned the 1-child policy being a good thing, and I never even mentioned aids (without the e) because it is not a consequence of giving females more control over their bodies and family income.
Nor did I say anything about giving the government the power to do those things you said...
This coming from an american is hypocritical at best, tbh...
Elyxiatic:
If you look at that map with the photovoltaic cells, can you see how spread out they are across the map?
The problems associated with I^2*R power losses there are so significant, you'd have to step the voltage up to 500kV (more likely 765kV) to transmit it a significant distance. Stepping a voltage up to such a high level means billions of dollars of infrastructure (transformers, switchgear, transmission lines) across those barren deserts.
-----
--- Quote ---China is very big on using these types of reactors to power their cities. Just as they are the the leading nation on windpower. In 6 years time they managed to increase their MWh output from windpower alone by 30 times to 70% that of ALL of the EU generates (and this includes nations big on windpower such as Germany, Denmark, Spain, and the U.K.)
--- End quote ---
This is from Wikipedia:
The People's Republic of China is the largest consumer of coal in the world,[1] and is about to become the largest user of coal-derived electricity, generating 1.95 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 68.7% of its electricity from coal as of 2006 (compared to 1.99 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, or 49% for the US).
It might have dropped to 60% at the lowest point in 2013.
Who cares if it has the same as 70% of the production of EU? China generates so much electricity to fund their industrial sector, the majority of their power comes through coal generation. The focus on wind power is what they use to pull the wool over the eyes of the media so they don't have to take real action on their CO2 emissions.