Jump to content
A71william

Solar Panels And Renewable Energy

Recommended Posts

Ok so the nearby Rampisham antenna array which I have a perfect view of and enjoy studying the area's unexplained lights. They're planning on replacing the antennas with 163,000 solar panels...

I hate these worthless slates of glass.

They're expensive and don't produce much electricity!

The materials used such as Titanium Oxide could be used for much better purposes.

There are much better sources of clean and cheap electricity which is also not ugly...

Britain has enough shale gas to last for hundreds of years yet nobody has mined it.

Nuclear power is clean, safe and produces tons of electricity.

Nuclear power is safe unless we get another arms race.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was hastily constructed in order to be better than America; the staff onsite were poorly trained and further more were told to conduct a training exercise with no supervisors...

It didn't actually kill enough people for it to matter. The radiation from it was pretty low too.

 

I think if we killed all the hippies, hoodlums and other worthless people we could power the Earth from Methane produced by their corpses. I hate this planet...

I don't like raging but seriously humans need to start putting their future ahead of them instead of worrying weather their fancy clothes look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the precise reason they're putting up the solar panels.

 

To build a safe nuclear power plant would cost 10X the amount the solar panels cost. and nuclear power is not renewable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the precise reason they're putting up the solar panels.

 

To build a safe nuclear power plant would cost 10X the amount the solar panels cost. and nuclear power is not renewable.

Nor is the sun...

Think before you post.

Also the sun itself is a nuclear fusion reactor to be precise.

Also I honestly think screw the safety unless it can actually cause a notable amount of damage.

Who cares if people die anyway they die all the time from pointless wars to old age...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest here.. when I first saw the title to the topic I was thinking... "Ohhhh another spambot. -evilface- "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest here.. when I first saw the title to the topic I was thinking... "Ohhhh another spambot. -evilface- "

You sir are right to think of me as a spam bot but sill.

It's an excuse to slap you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor is the sun...

Think before you post.

Also the sun itself is a nuclear fusion reactor to be precise.

Also I honestly think screw the safety unless it can actually cause a notable amount of damage.

Who cares if people die anyway they die all the time from pointless wars to old age...

The sun won't explode for another several billion years, doesn't douse us with harmful radiation while we are on Earth, and doesn't put off nuclear waste.

 

Why not harness it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so the nearby Rampisham antenna array which I have a perfect view of and enjoy studying the area's unexplained lights. They're planning on replacing the antennas with 163,000 solar panels...

I hate these worthless slates of glass.

They're expensive and don't produce much electricity!

The materials used such as Titanium Oxide could be used for much better purposes.

There are much better sources of clean and cheap electricity which is also not ugly...

Britain has enough shale gas to last for hundreds of years yet nobody has mined it.

Nuclear power is clean, safe and produces tons of electricity.

Nuclear power is safe unless we get another arms race.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was hastily constructed in order to be better than America; the staff onsite were poorly trained and further more were told to conduct a training exercise with no supervisors...

It didn't actually kill enough people for it to matter. The radiation from it was pretty low too.

 

I think if we killed all the hippies, hoodlums and other worthless people we could power the Earth from Methane produced by their corpses. I hate this planet...

I don't like raging but seriously humans need to start putting their future ahead of them instead of worrying weather their fancy clothes look good.

 

Deaths are still deaths. Just because not "enough people" died doesn't mean its any less important. And added to that there are side effects to the exposure of the radiation released. Plenty of things can go wrong with Nuclear Power plants. I am confident we will find another way to produce energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun won't explode for another several billion years, doesn't douse us with harmful radiation while we are on Earth, and doesn't put off nuclear waste.

 

Why not harness it?

Actually this is about solar panels...

No other technology is used and instead horrible sheets of blue glass is layered everywhere.

I don't mind solar energy itself but there needs to be a new way to harness it!

 

Deaths are still deaths. Just because not "enough people" died doesn't mean its any less important. And added to that there are side effects to the exposure of the radiation released. Plenty of things can go wrong with Nuclear Power plants. I am confident we will find another way to produce energy.

Why do people care if someone dies...

Nuclear power plants have FAILED in the past because of human error not mechanic errors.

***ishuma was placed underground and didn't even have a wall (The existing one had normal waves going well over the top!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry solar panels are worthless?

 

Your facts are wrong.

 

Enough energy hits the earth from the sun in an hour to cover the amount of energy used by the Earth in a year. To put it in numerical terms the the amount that hits in a year is of the magnitude of around 10^24 J. Even photosynthesis 'only' harness ~ 10^21 J. This is still more than enough.

 

Saying that they are worthless means you don't know your facts. Yes at the moment we can only manufacture solar panels with about ~20-40% efficiency of conversion of light to electricity. This however increases with new advances in technology as do all advancements.

 

To be honest the fact that you refer to it as glass means you have skewed facts. Perhaps you need to check them instead. Don't get me wrong glass is used in their construction but they are more than that. Solar panels in the nature of them are useful; they provide a sustainable source of energy that could provide energy not only enough to support the earth but also to provide easy energy to places that have access to large periods of sun but ultimately don't have access to power-stations and such-forth.

 

 

Power stations have failed because of human error? Yes the mixing of NaK with H2O resulting in the explosion of a power station in Russia (and others) was not down to the fact that the pipes burst resulting in the contact of these two substances and the ultimately explosive result.

 

 

But to claify your opinion of death being meaningless (obviously an attempt to sstir up trouble but I will reply with an logical response anyway); You are saying you are 100% happy if it was your life that would be lost as the result of a failure in your 'totally risk free, ultimately bestest method of energy ever!' because it's only a life.

 

 

Simply - I've seen from many of your posts that your ideas are science and how things work are skewed. I highly doubt you have any such background in these areas and are instead going on propaganda rather than having knowledge in the area. And before you ask, yes I do know about both methods, how the work and the ideals behind them. Is Nuclear power an option - Yes. Is it the only option that will work, risk free and utterly perfect - No. You know nothing about this method if you think that is true. Are solar panels an option - Yes. Are they worthless - No. Again, you know nothing about this method if you decry their pointless-ness from the start.

 

Also trust me; A powerplant costs more to run than a solar panel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry solar panels are worthless?

 

Your facts are wrong.

 

Enough energy hits the earth from the sun in an hour to cover the amount of energy used by the Earth in a year. To put it in numerical terms the the amount that hits in a year is of the magnitude of around 10^24 J. Even photosynthesis 'only' harness ~ 10^21 J. This is still more than enough.

 

Saying that they are worthless means you don't know your facts. Yes at the moment we can only manufacture solar panels with about ~20-40% efficiency of conversion of light to electricity. This however increases with new advances in technology as do all advancements.

 

To be honest the fact that you refer to it as glass means you have skewed facts. Perhaps you need to check them instead. Don't get me wrong glass is used in their construction but they are more than that. Solar panels in the nature of them are useful; they provide a sustainable source of energy that could provide energy not only enough to support the earth but also to provide easy energy to places that have access to large periods of sun but ultimately don't have access to power-stations and such-forth.

 

 

Power stations have failed because of human error? Yes the mixing of NaK with H2O resulting in the explosion of a power station in Russia (and others) was not down to the fact that the pipes burst resulting in the contact of these two substances and the ultimately explosive result.

 

 

But to claify your opinion of death being meaningless (obviously an attempt to sstir up trouble but I will reply with an logical response anyway); You are saying you are 100% happy if it was your life that would be lost as the result of a failure in your 'totally risk free, ultimately bestest method of energy ever!' because it's only a life.

 

 

Simply - I've seen from many of your posts that your ideas are science and how things work are skewed. I highly doubt you have any such background in these areas and are instead going on propaganda rather than having knowledge in the area. And before you ask, yes I do know about both methods, how the work and the ideals behind them. Is Nuclear power an option - Yes. Is it the only option that will work, risk free and utterly perfect - No. You know nothing about this method if you think that is true. Are solar panels an option - Yes. Are they worthless - No. Again, you know nothing about this method if you decry their pointless-ness from the start.

 

Also trust me; A powerplant costs more to run than a solar panel

I understand how a solar panel works...

I think using a star's energy (The Sun IS a star!) is a good idea but not with solar panels.

I prefer using things such as mirrors or Fresnel lenses and a solar furnace. As they're pretty cheap plus it won't require any further technological advances to harness, just a lot of math...

We could have deserts covered in them and then use HVDC power lines across to the countries near them.

Or each country could have their own. This would rule out countries which don't get much sunlight!

 

Yes the death of me would just be another life. At the end of the day you are born to die just as nature intended...

 

We could just harvest the power of Nuclear Fusion.

The fuel can easily be made from distillation then electrolysis.

To not go into detail you effectively remove the electrons, bang, lots of electricity...

It's cheaper, safer and more potent as well as being cleaner.

The Sun itself is a Nuclear Fusor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer using things such as mirrors or Fresnel lenses and a solar furnace. As they're pretty cheap plus it won't require any further technological advances to harness, just a lot of math...

 

You're using words to try and cover the general premise. That being the Fresnel lenses are used to focus sunlight onto solar cells. So you would still need solar cells. Thus, not pointless. Furthermore the use of mirrors create an similar 'eyesore' that you so decry.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

TomEdit: I also apologise if this post seems rude but the fact is I know what I'm talking about, at least in this, and certain other, areas. I'm glad that you have an interest in science as I have a keen focus on encouraging people to go into the a science orientated career whatever field that may be. But that whole point of science is looking at things objectively and factually, something which you haven't quite done. You've thrown around concepts and ideas with apparently little knowledge in the field; and no wikipedia doesn't count as a source.

 

Plus the language you use and the way you try to get your message across is brazen, atrocious and antagonistic, none of which makes people want to come in and have a discuss. In fact I read your post and came in purely to prove your points wrong where they were wrong, to the best of my knowledge. Realistically I would have preferred to have a discussion but saying "This is wrong and this is right, plus people dying is fine and anyone that doesn't take my view is an idiot" is not only an awful method at establishing your view point and side of the discussion but also a way at not getting places in general life.

 

The fact is there are a whole catalogue of ideas all offering something and all having their downfalls. Trust me, there is reason we don't have a bunch of solar panels in the desert. I will be happy to talk about the methods and use what I know to have a discussion but the fact is throwing your weight around when you don't have some of your facts in line isn't a good place to encourage me, or anyone else to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're using words to try and cover the general premise. That being the Fresnel lenses are used to focus sunlight onto solar cells. So you would still need solar cells. Thus, not pointless. Furthermore the use of mirrors create an similar 'eyesore' that you so decry.

Actually something I had set-up was solar flower consisting of 5 lenses.

Arranged in a cross with the light being focused onto a final lens where it was directed onto a black metal tube surrounded by foil to keep the light from escaping. Water was run through it and turned into steam which drove a turbine that was hooked up to a ball mill (It's great for milling rocket fuels, BB bullets and turning dry earth into a lovely powder for batteries!) but was changed to generate electricity...

It was quite efficient but I got bored of waiting so just stuck it onto the grid supply with a timer so it would turn on at night.

 

Yes it wouldn't be beautiful but some solar towers are unintentionally quite nice to look at.

Further more they would be in places such as deserts where nobody goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually something I had set-up was solar flower consisting of 5 lenses.

Arranged in a cross with the light being focused onto a final lens where it was directed onto a black metal tube surrounded by foil to keep the light from escaping. Water was run through it and turned into steam which drove a turbine that was hooked up to a ball mill (It's great for milling rocket fuels, BB bullets and turning dry earth into a lovely powder for batteries!) but was changed to generate electricity...

It was quite efficient but I got bored of waiting so just stuck it onto the grid supply with a timer so it would turn on at night.

 

Yes it wouldn't be beautiful but some solar towers are unintentionally quite nice to look at.

Further more they would be in places such as deserts where nobody goes...

Why not just use a water mill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just use a water mill?

I would but I don't live next to a river...

I have one nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious solution is the one we have been doing for the past hundreds of years, advance. Currently there is no perfect source of energy which is why we are slowly working towards obtaining one. Their are many possible sources of energy that we have not yet perfected, such as fusion energy (energy produced from nuclear fusion is 3-4X greater than Nuclear fission, and has no negative risks, such as a nuclear meltdown, plus is cheap). The only problem with such forms of energy is we cannot produce enough concentrated energy to replicate a nuclear fusion (what is happening on the sun) so we left to just advance and to one day reach out conclusions.

 

Physics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most obvious solution is the one we have been doing for the past hundreds of years, advance. Currently there is no perfect source of energy which is why we are slowly working towards obtaining one. Their are many possible sources of energy that we have not yet perfected, such as fusion energy (energy produced from nuclear fusion is 3-4X greater than Nuclear fission, and has no negative risks, such as a nuclear meltdown, plus is cheap). The only problem with such forms of energy is we cannot produce enough concentrated energy to replicate a nuclear fusion (what is happening on the sun) so we left to just advance and to one day reach out conclusions.

 

Physics!

Ummm I'm unsure weather you understand how it actually works.

A fusor could easily suffer from a major voltage spike if left unprotected from lightening storms or static electricity which would envoke an extremely high rate of fusion which the container could not handle...

Also we can replicate it it's just harnessing the heat energy after the reaction.

People have made these as radiation sources in their garages.

It's surprisingly cheap for something so powerful and it's legal (In the UK and maybe USA.)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize how cheap and simple such a fusion is, but we are not currently able to harness the energy of a nuclear fusion. And nuclear fusion is worlds safer than nuclear fission, because when you are dealing with nuclear fission you are using unstable elements thus the resultant is a unstable element, but with nuclear fission you use perfectly stable elements.

 

And currently it takes so much energy to produce a nuclear fusion we exit with almost having gained no energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize how cheap and simple such a fusion is, but we are not currently able to harness the energy of a nuclear fusion. And nuclear fusion is worlds safer than nuclear fission, because when you are dealing with nuclear fission you are using unstable elements thus the resultant is a unstable element, but with nuclear fission you use perfectly stable elements.

 

And currently it takes so much energy to produce a nuclear fusion we exit with almost having gained no energy.

Well mainly because inefficient systems have been used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't very many good arguments against nuclear energy...

There aren't any good arguments for solar energy as it stands right now.

In the future there might be an argument against nuclear energy or for solar energy...

 

BTW guys nuclear energy is so plentiful that it is basically unlimited. By the time we would run out there would probably be Dyson Spheres or we'd all be extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually something I had set-up was solar flower consisting of 5 lenses.

Arranged in a cross with the light being focused onto a final lens where it was directed onto a black metal tube surrounded by foil to keep the light from escaping. Water was run through it and turned into steam which drove a turbine that was hooked up to a ball mill (It's great for milling rocket fuels, BB bullets and turning dry earth into a lovely powder for batteries!) but was changed to generate electricity...

It was quite efficient but I got bored of waiting so just stuck it onto the grid supply with a timer so it would turn on at night.

 

Yes it wouldn't be beautiful but some solar towers are unintentionally quite nice to look at.

Further more they would be in places such as deserts where nobody goes...

 

Same way that you make Nitroglycerin at home as you once said? No, no you didn't.

 

To be honest you're sprouting terms you have no basis in and saying they're the perfect solution. Yeah sure stick things in the desert, never mind the hundread's of metres of cable required to transport the electricity from the station.

 

Tell me what genuine background you have in fields such as this (i.e. qualifications, and consideirng you've alread said you're at school and I distincly remember saying you're under 16 I doubt very little) and I might accept even 10% of what you say. Other than that you are ignoring any comment that doesn't support you while sprouting terms you can get from a simple wikipedia search. Well done.

 

The fact is that neither method is perfect and both have their ups and downs. However solar panels are not useless, convert light directly to electricty and all in all are actually fairly good, especially for certain aspects like having your home powered by them. End of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...