How we will actually lose California?.
 

They are going to try and shoot a laser at some stuff and make a baby star form!
Sounds like fun, no? Reading on you will find that it is actually going to be a very tiny and short lived bit of star....if it even works at all.

But anyway, I always assumed that California would fall off the side of the county into the sea......or collapse into anarchy and become some post-apocalyptic land that Hollywood is fond of showing us. What do you think about our giant "star-smasher" laser?

Sounds familiar...
http://gracemagazine.files.wordpress...or-octopus.jpg

Man I saw this thread on the Escapist a few days ago and I swear the first 2 posts on that site were almost the same as here, being filled as they were with tidings of the imminent apocalypse and a reference to Spider Man 2 respectively.

I thought you were better than this NPF. *Shakes head dissapointedly.*

We already have a gigantic nuclear fireball in the sky, and it gives us thousands of times more energy--for free--than we require to run everything we have.

This is time and money better spent perfecting solar technology.

Must we still F___ nature in the @$$?!
 

..

Seriously?

A star on Earth? Aren't there more than a few complications with that?

Damnit, Science.

Nah, it'll only be a tiny little star and will only last for like 200 trillionths of the second. The stated goal is to see if the can do it so that then they can turn their laser on the ocean and fuse salty hydrogen or something.

I'm all for alternative sources of energy, but we sort of have plenty of those already.

Erm guys, this is to try and see if fusion power is, you know, possible and viable. It's a good thing.

Not really, Solar=Better less stupid, less done just to flashily show off the 'Miracle Cure" for energy problems.

What Prems said.

Solar has its issues, even if there was mass funding for it. And especially if we take into account the environmental aspect, solar is surprisingly dirty due to high life cycle emissions.

Of course as the technology continues to advance and progress it will become cleaner, but it's nowhere near the point where it can replace nuclear, hydroelectric. Fusion is worth reaching, because it's like better, cleaner nuclear, and nukes are already rather clean.

I do say this being a fan of solar and hoping to solar up my someday rooftop, too.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7...renasissan.jpg
?

Also: Oh no, not this again.

It may be closer than you think.

Hang on, isn't this related to the HiPER facility in England where they're trying to create energy by shooting lasers at a small pellet of hydrogen isotopes? Because I'm pretty sure the two projects are similar.

For more info on how this research could potentially END the entire world, please see Robert Brockway's book, Everything is Going to Kill Everybody. Let me give you an excerpt from the New Energy section in Current Threats:

I'm pretty sure they are similar projects.

Sounds a bit idealistic, no?

Half a million square kilometers of solar panels? Seriously?

The largest one in the world is like, under ten square kilometers. Not to mention the practicality of putting all our power eggs in one basket. It would make far more sense to spread it around. I'm not opposed to huge solar farms in big, useless deserts, but still.

Yes, barrels with radioactive signs on them. Oh no save us!!!!

So little waste is actually produced by nuclear power, compared to most other power sources. Tens of thousands of tonnes of waste per year, yes, of high atomic weight compounds (so, duh), not to mention that's a really small number on the global scale. It is, literally, something we can just step back and contain temporarily until research and technology allows for disposal or recycling. And then probably fusion and other powers can take over.


EDIT: Probably worth noting that energy efficiency is a worthwhile venture right now. I imagine we'd need less power plants in 2030 rather than more if we just stopped being so wasteful in almost every aspect of our lives. With emphasis on the US and Canada.

What's actually sad is how wasteful we are with our nuclear supplies here in the US. When a rod gets old in other countries they just pull it out and scrape off the crap shine it up and put it back. We change out the whole dame rod after it's like 10% used and stuff it under a mountain.

I imagine all the automobiles in and around the plants are hummer limos as well.

Well California is officially worse then Texas and New Jersey. (no offense)

If the world nations panic about this, I'll support then greatly on the issue

because nothing good ever comes from build a star on a planet.

The people calling this a miniature star in that article are morons trying to stir up controversy. IT IS FUSION YES WE KNOW ITS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.

The second point on the graphic makes it clear that the blocks are approximations, and that realistic allotment of solar panels would ideally be as decentralized as possible.

As the technology becomes more mature, you'll likely find solar power to be almost entirely decentralized, with panels being standard fare not just on house roofs, but on pretty much any structure or item outdoors which requires electricity, and the panels will be far more efficient at collection than what we have today. It will go a long way towards eliminating the need for a power grid altogether.

WHelp, NOW we're doomed, good job, douchebag.

I love the fact that they're effectively giving Arnold Schwarzenegger control of the death star.

Nothing'll happon. It'll just be a flash, then people will move on to the next crazy-sounding idea.

So we're smashing neutrons together to form miniature black holes and firing lasers to create miniature stars.

At what point...you know what, never mind.

Protons and antiprotons, actually.

Jerk.

Just protons and lead nuclei, actually. To get a reasonable amount of data you need millions of particles whipping by a point in very short periods of time so that a few thousand of them at best can actually collide. There is no known source that could supply enough antiprotons for that kind of action. Positrons maybe antiprotons not so much.

If only we could. You see neutrons having no charge are really really easy to smack into each other. (They tend not to push each other out of the way.) Unfortunately having no charge there really is no good way to accelerate them. (They don't respond much to magnetic or electric fields which is pretty much the only way of doing it.)

Actually, that sentence was in reference to the discussion of solar vs. nuclear, which has repeated itself over and over again.

I don't actually have any knowledge to confirm or deny your claims about holding nuclear waste, but I found it odd to refer to a process that produces dangerous waste we currently have no way of getting rid of as "clean". Also, I thought that stuff was rather expensive to hold onto safely, even if the amounts are small on a global scale?

I'm also intrigued by this part:
Could you explain that too? Don't believe I've seen this before.

Blow on them really, really hard.



On solar, Azi, you DO realize that first off, solar panels, even crappy civilian ones, pay for themselves in roughly eight years, right? That's materials, labor, AND profit there. And yes, they ARE that efficient that it would really take that little area. Add to that that crappy panels have a ~40-year life span and you've got yourself a pretty good energy source.

Also, they can be put nearly anywhere. You don't need blazing sun for them to work. Germany is using them heavily, I hear, and they're not exactly Arizona over there. Solar panels are still capable of generating power even on cloudy days.

To be frank, with thin-film technologies advancing rapidly, there's not a damn reason solar can't power the world. You can put that stuff in SHINGLES, for crying out loud, not to mention windows and even paint.

On the other hand, people are so stuck on traditional power sources that the public mind is blocking integration. Everyone associates solar panels with hippies. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a black hole of funds which will never be profitable, produces more waste than you give it credit for that is MUCH more dangerous than average, and which has already filled Yucca Mountain, and is very inefficient.

To put it this way, wind and solar are renewable, relatively efficient, and pretty darn cost-effective. I think that makes them a superior option.

Oh no, we're doing experiments!

Reminds me of this thing I read where a kid increased the resolution of a computer at school, explained (to computer asstarded people) that he basically opened up parts of the screen and got in trouble because what if they didn't want them to see those parts of the screens.

...

I'm sorry, but I have nothing. Those people should be put out of their misery as gently as possible. My grandparents are more computer-literate than that, and they had to call me over to their house to tell them how to turn their monitor off.

Solar is not efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The only things it isn't worse than are coal and natural gas. That's what I meant about considering environmental costs. Even nuclear produces way less greenhouse gas.

All I meant in my critique of solar in people's earlier posts is that it was idealistic. I'm not against solar. But half a million square kilometers IS a lot. It's a long term solution, not a short term one. I'm still okay with pursuing it. I fucking am personally pursuing it.

Wind is probably more efficient, particularly those VAWTs for less windy areas. But then there's the whole "People don't want to live near turbines" issue that lowers public interest.

Is there a source you can point me to on this? I'm doing a paper on alternative energy, actually, so any info could be great. Does the same apply to thin-film?

"Not In My Backyard" is a very tiresome mindset a lot of people have and, frankly, tough shit they can learn to deal with it.

Actually, wind farms do plenty well setting up on farm farms. It's nothing but benefit to the farmers, who don't lose the use of their own land and are paid good money as long as the posts are still standing, i.e. effectively forever. There is literally no downside for them.

So, who wants to go replay MGS: Twin Snakes and listen to the very relevant to this topic lecture about how NUCLEAR POWER SUCKS.

Nuklear Power, on the other hand, is a mighty fine thing.

Unless they are a threat to local endangered wildlife, then there's a slight problem with developing wind power.

While some areas may get to enjoy large-scale wind farms, Northwest Arkansas will not be one of those areas. And looking at the solar power potential for the US, we're not a great area to rely extensively on solar paneling either. We need cleaner power production here other than the coal and gas-fired plants we're currently relying on. And unfortunately, Nuclear (fusion and fission) looks like the best choice for growing areas like us.

Your argument would hold more weight if they actually had results on the bats. People love to pull the wildlife card, but the fact of the matter is that the turbines don't actually kill that much.

As for the solar, it looks to me like part of their ratings system is how much empty space there is, which is why Texas isn't lit up more. But to be frank, 4-5 kWh/m^2/day isn't exactly terrible. Not when half of Arizona, the absolute poster-state for solar power, only gets 6-7 and half of California only gets 5-6.

The point being that just because it's in a green area doesn't mean it's not viable. I direct you back to the example of Germany, which is by no means Arizona, who are using the technology just fine.

In fact the best places in Germany for Solar don't even quite get up to the absolute worst places in the US in terms of Solar potential. Yet Germany is doing well for itself with Solar. If they can do it with a higher over all population density (or at least I imagine so) plus less overall resource per square foot then we have no excuse.

THEY WON'T DEAL WITH IT IN MY BACKYARD.

Germany started a lot earlier as well, I believe. I remember my secondary school gradually generating more and more electricity by solar. It was a public school, too. So yeah, despite lower short-term potential, they've put more resources into building up the infrastructure.
Strangely, the oil industry is a lot less powerful over there. Coincidences, eh?

Since Germany was being hyped up as the example for solar power generation I wanted to see what it was they were doing.

What it looks like is that the Germans are focusing on multiple renewable sources (like wind, biomass, landfill gas, hydro and geothermal - includes solar) while they are trying to decommission their nuclear power supply (which may be halted) and other fossil fuel plants. And here's an article talking about their renewable energy law.

And I'm surprised, people here are so focused on wind and solar - they haven't mentioned damless hydroelectric power generation. Seems like this would be useful since it doesn't rely on taking up actual land to build a wind or solar farm and the environmental impact seems to be negligible and even beneficial depending on how they build the turbines.

"Fuck endangered wildlife - I'm concerned about the environment"?

Unfortunately it's a legitimate concern when dealing with endangered wildlife, and it's something the county is having to deal with and study before they move forward with any future wind power plans.

To be frank, it's less that I'm not concerned about endangered wildlife and more that I'm considering that the bats would have to be flying roughly 200 meters in the air just to get up to blade height and that doesn't strike me as being a good height for bugs in the first place, and there's no indication that the bats wouldn't just avoid it altogether. It's a possibility, not a confirmed danger, and the only way that data is going to be collected is to build one and see what happens. You're scare-mongering as if these things are designed to seek and destroy wildlife with extreme prejudice. Yeah, if it DOES cause problems with the bats, then it's not a good idea. Where there are groups of bats living. And it's all hunky-dory where there aren't any.

You know what? Fuck it, Blues. Yes, I'm scare-mongering! How dare I link an article that defies the great power of Wind!

Is it because I'm a secret fossil fuelist? Oh gods, what have I become!?

Put it my backyard. The less pleasant, the better -- I hate my neighbors.

Oh, God, is that really where this is going? I'm saying that fears over the countless deaths of innocent wildlife are greatly exaggerated with current technology. Not that it doesn't happen, but that it doesn't happen as much as people think. This is called realism.

People are simply WAY too apt to shout about how alternative energy won't work in their area, but in my search for sources, I came up with a paper about putting solar in Antarctica. Ant-fucking-arctica. Mull that over once.

I think it's time people stop nay-saying and actually look at some updated facts. You've taken an entirely adversarial stance to things here where it isn't even warranted and I'm frankly done debating with you until you cool your jets and take a look at current info instead of posting what amounts to "this might be a problem maybe" and throwing it around like a grim certainty.

See, this is why I said I'd like to see more info, because if it IS a problem, then yeah, one spot turbines can't go, but you're not even giving it a chance to explore that. And then there are plenty of other options that'll work just fine, like hot-oil-and-mirror solar plants or any number of things.

Hey blues I saw this crazy debate method where you AREN'T a condescending douche, maybe you should look it up?

Hell, I'm down with that. Animals can suck it.

I'm sorry, I was trying that, but it seems that it only made things spiral to the point where someone exploded at me for questioning their information. I think I have a right to a small negative reaction of my own.

You know, normally I step back and cool off for this kind of shit, but no amount of stepping back and cooling off is going to make me not see it as a giant fuck you.

I'm done trying to be reasonable and I'm done here.

Hey, if you've got people working there 6 months of the year for research with straight (albeit, less) daylight, why not?

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/01/22/...ar-wind-power/

I did not intend to take an 'entirely adversarial stance' in regards to wind or even solar power. I'll apologize since it seems that I've come across that way.