Generators that rely on cooperative weather (solar panels, wind turbines, wave power) will never be able to supply a steady stream of energy. It can be mitigated somewhat by storing it in batteries but never completely eliminated.
Nuclear power is the best, especially when paired with fuel reprocessing, but the environment lobby hates nuclear anything.
Solar power satellites that beam the energy down as microwaves would work. With the recent jump in private space launches, someone may try that.
After working the emergency department tonight; I think Lithium reactors would be apropos. I can just hear it now, "I say mate, another round of lithium reactors for the nubile young lady in the corner booth". "That oughta quiet any noise from her pie hole!" Steve (a jaded old fart that's tired of the inanity of today's society)
I have often pondered why there are never any proposals for placing 'windmill' type generators in the major ocean currents.
Granted they would be a bitch to INSTALL while fighting said currents, but once there, the current is non-stop (see also: no need to figure out storage or how to cover 'gaps' in production v. wind/solar), and the greater fluid density of water v. air would mean greater efficiency and reduced 'swept area'.
Curent move. You'd have to have something that could be moved as the current moved. perhaps with cables to long anchors. But the concept is sound and has, actually, been tried in a small scale. It does kill fish though, much like land based ones kill birds.
On the plus side, simple construction, cheap continuous input (free for all practical purposes) and would require few employees. But, the minus side has a few killers, salt water is extremely corrosive and requires expensive materials to withstand the effects. The transmission from sea to land presents a few inherent problems such as insulation and protection of the conductors. Remember moisture and electric power do not play well together. Then the issue of maintenance cannot be overlooked. Working off of a platform located in the ocean is a logistical nightmare. I am for as much clean energy as we can afford; unfortunately to date, we have spend billions (with a b) and do not have much to show for it.
It'll be interesting to see what the unintended side effects are if these get implemented widescale.
ReplyDeleteReef damage or explosive growth, harbors silting up, beaches either growing or disappearing, etc.
$/KW... another green sink hole.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Arthur raises the rule of unintended consequence albeit a look a oil rigs in the Gulf or North Sea might provide some insights.
Generators that rely on cooperative weather (solar panels, wind turbines, wave power) will never be able to supply a steady stream of energy. It can be mitigated somewhat by storing it in batteries but never completely eliminated.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power is the best, especially when paired with fuel reprocessing, but the environment lobby hates nuclear anything.
Solar power satellites that beam the energy down as microwaves would work. With the recent jump in private space launches, someone may try that.
Lithium reactors. Low cost, safe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute
Ooops - thorium reactors, sorry.
ReplyDeleteAfter working the emergency department tonight; I think Lithium reactors would be apropos. I can just hear it now, "I say mate, another round of lithium reactors for the nubile young lady in the corner booth". "That oughta quiet any noise from her pie hole!"
ReplyDeleteSteve
(a jaded old fart that's tired of the inanity of today's society)
I have often pondered why there are never any proposals for placing 'windmill' type generators in the major ocean currents.
ReplyDeleteGranted they would be a bitch to INSTALL while fighting said currents, but once there, the current is non-stop (see also: no need to figure out storage or how to cover 'gaps' in production v. wind/solar), and the greater fluid density of water v. air would mean greater efficiency and reduced 'swept area'.
That's an awesome idea :)
DeleteCurent move. You'd have to have something that could be moved as the current moved. perhaps with cables to long anchors. But the concept is sound and has, actually, been tried in a small scale. It does kill fish though, much like land based ones kill birds.
DeleteOn the plus side, simple construction, cheap continuous input (free for all practical purposes) and would require few employees. But, the minus side has a few killers, salt water is extremely corrosive and requires expensive materials to withstand the effects. The transmission from sea to land presents a few inherent problems such as insulation and protection of the conductors. Remember moisture and electric power do not play well together. Then the issue of maintenance cannot be overlooked. Working off of a platform located in the ocean is a logistical nightmare. I am for as much clean energy as we can afford; unfortunately to date, we have spend billions (with a b) and do not have much to show for it.
ReplyDeleteI kind of liked the music............
ReplyDelete