BF2S Forums The first 100% solar powered city in the U.S.

Burwhale wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Burwhale, for nuclear waste...


Fire it into space in large quantities tbh.

Actually that sounds like a really good idea, except I did hear one story that a  nuclear waste rocket could possibly explode in the atmosphere spreading a radioactive cloud over the earth. I think I would prefer to bury it. Good idea in principle though.

We can put a few thousand satellites into space but can't manage to get a single large rocket of nuclear waste into space? I think its more a case of people can't be fucked, as opposed to insurmountable risks.

That said the fuel for the rockets has to come from somewhere.

There's plenty of alternatives for hurling waste into space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch


We should start off small, things like vacuum cleaner contents and other things that can't be put into the big recyclable blue bin (who else gets that btw? we have three bins outside the house, one for "normal" waste, one for recyclable things which is the one that surprisingly is used the most, and one for food/garden waste)

Mekstizzle wrote:

We should start off small, things like vacuum cleaner contents and other things that can't be put into the big recyclable blue bin (who else gets that btw? we have three bins outside the house, one for "normal" waste, one for recyclable things which is the one that surprisingly is used the most, and one for food/garden waste)

We have 4 bins.

Regular waste, blue bin (recyclable), green bin (food & garden), and grey bin (paper & cardboard).

There's plenty of alternatives for hurling waste into space

Deep ocean subduction zones.

Firing a rocket into space occasionally would use a lot less fossil fuels than the current practice for using them for just about everything.

Depends if you mean into orbit or into space.
I guess you can look into the cost per kg of getting stuff out of orbit, I doubt very much it would be effective.

Burwhale wrote:

Feos wrote:

An analysis. That would be one.

Well heres another one

And another

I cant be bothered finding more.

And all those analyses gloss over the negatives associated with solar power material production. And they gloss over the low efficiencies. And many other negatives.

Feos wrote:

Granted, the technology has improved dramatically since my Electrical Engineering undergrad (you assume wrong), but it is still not the panacea so many claim it to be. Extremely low efficiency, toxic output, relatively low lifetime. Adds up to be an environmental mess. There is far more to pollution than global warming gases. Too bad so many tend to ignore that.

Efficiency is getting better all the time, and will keep getting better. Toxic output myth is bedunked in the links I have posted. Low lifetime is also a myth as most solar systems will last 25-30 years. The fact that there are heaps of other pollutants than CO2. Yes there is , so it may pay to have a look at the other pollutants that come out of a coal fired power station. Check here under radioactive elements , acid rain and particulate matter.

Getting better, yes, but not to the point we can make the cutover. And it still produces significant toxins into the environment, regardless of the efficiency. Would it ultimately be preferable over fossil fuels? Of course. My argument is that it isn't there yet, nor is it as clean as the solar lobby would lead everyone to believe. That is something that is carefully glossed over in all the research out there. Just because it's not as bad as fossil fuels doesn't mean it's good.

feos wrote:

Go ahead and doubt my former professors if you so choose. They are far more qualified to state their findings than you are to dispute them.

The thing is, I dont expect you to trust me, but I would expect you to trust the research that backs up my opinion. I believe, and I think I have shown that my research is correct, and your professors is probably wrong.
By the way, you havent even posted their research, so feel free to do that so I can check it.

So you can check my professors' research? Seriously? Get the fuck over yourself. They've been professors doing research longer than you've been alive. Their specialties are in energy conversion and unfortunately, I can't get to their published research, as it is in account-required sites.

Kmarion wrote:

People seem to be forgetting that this is a first for us. The knowledge we gain will help in future decision making and direction. I am not one that thinks that there is one clear solution. .. although it appears that some of you think you have it all figured out already.

Certainly not me, Kmar. I think it's great and I hope the technological hurdles can be overcome to make it feasible on a larger scale.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is the larger scale...

This is the first attempt. 20k homes really isn't THAT large scale in community development in Fl.

Wet fart.... you're it.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is the larger scale...

This is the first attempt. 20k homes really isn't THAT large scale in community development in Fl.

Wet fart.... you're it.

400 million for a power plant based on technology that apparently has not yet proven itself feasible on the small scale, as you recognize the need for perfection of the technology...lololololol

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This is the first attempt. 20k homes really isn't THAT large scale in community development in Fl.

Wet fart.... you're it.

400 million for a power plant based on technology that apparently has not yet proven itself feasible on the small scale, as you recognize the need for perfection of the technology...lololololol

Wtf is your problem? It's being funded by Florida power. Have you got some information that they don't? 400 million in terms of what we spend on energy is most definitely small scale.  lolimfucknfullofmyselfandunlovedathomelolol

400 million is 400 million, regardless of total energy budget. There are a lot of things you could do with that money.

Scale does not condone inefficiency outside of the lab.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

People seem to be forgetting that this is a first for us. The knowledge we gain will help in future decision making and direction. I am not one that thinks that there is one clear solution. .. although it appears that some of you think you have it all figured out already.

Where I'm coming from is the right here and now, the concerns to Florida's prosperity and growth which are fueled by energy demands of tomorrow.  Solar is the day after tomorrow.  The way the state fiscal budget for the year and future year projections are shaping up, I don't think the time is really right for the state.  Nuclear energy yields the best bang for the buck.

This is a private endeavor. If it facepalms it is entirely on florida power.

Kmarion wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wtf is your problem? It's being funded by Florida power. Have you got some information that they don't? 400 million in terms of what we spend on energy is most definitely small scale.  lolimfucknfullofmyselfandunlovedathomelolol

Who funds Florida Power?

Investors/it's customers

Are they getting federal/state match funds?  Is this the same Babcock Ranch acquired a year or two ago?

*edit:  If it is private, I agree with you 100%.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-04-13 19:24:38)

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wtf is your problem? It's being funded by Florida power. Have you got some information that they don't? 400 million in terms of what we spend on energy is most definitely small scale.  lolimfucknfullofmyselfandunlovedathomelolol

400 million is 400 million, regardless of total energy budget. There are a lot of things you could do with that money.

Scale does not condone inefficiency outside of the lab.

Well, I guess they will have to answer to their investors. The same ones who voted for the project.

This is where I am confused as well. I think either:

1) The "green" portion of the investment is complete bullshit in itself, but it can still turn a profit without it. The advantage is solely in marketing. he says as if that is a small one

2) They are lobbying for or anticipating government intervention to turn the profit there.

I could not find anything about their business model on their site. I don't know if that is standard practice or not.

The technology isn't there. That's all there is to it.