[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8[/youtube]


If the world is running out of fossil fuels and renewable energy is expensive and time consuming, why not use light as a sorce of heat. There's every advantage to use a mirror or lens to focus light with only 1 major disadvantage, nighttime (and storms). Its simple, very hot and able to produce steam to generate power instantly, and best it has absolutly 0 byproduct. I wonder why this is not being used as a alternate sorce of energy 8when its the cheapest and simplest thing there is. Oh right.. there's no money from oil the government can steal

I would just have to swing my hand through there as fast as I could..

While I agree with your desire and premise, it is not that easy, unfortunately.

Here is a good description of the energies http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html. Basic summary: the world needs 12 Terrawatts today and the solar energy received by the entire planet's surface is 84 Terrawatts - seems perfect ... but then you realize that covering the entire planet with solar energy conversion material (with efficiency losses too) is simply not possible.

Yes, certain point applications make a lot of sense (I am going to investigate solar power as a source of electricity for my home), but as a general world-wide source of energy, it has a lot of limitations.

I'd rather hold out hope for cheap fusion power ... someday (I hope in my lifetime), it will happen.

Z

Yes, covering Earth in panels would be bad which is why we need a solar field in space (and also create an efficient means to transfer that energy).

oh yes I see. I was also just watching something on science channel about that too. Dam, well hopefully in the next decade a super light sensitive compound

alms24sebring wrote:oh yes I see. I was also just watching something on science channel about that too. Dam, well hopefully in the next decade a super light sensitive compound

Unfortunately, the sensitivity of the light compound doesn't matter on a grand scale. BTW, that is why I used the actual solar energy received in my post ... if you had perfect 100% efficiency of converting light to electricity, the energy conversion result will be just that maximum amount of energy in that article I linked to.

Even with a house solar system, the electricity generated will max out per the area that you can fit panels on. An increase in efficiency can reduce the number of panels you might need for a typical house (or maximize the electricity generated once you have used up all your area ... like the roof of your house, or unused land behind your property, etc.)

Solar electricity generation is a good option for many home-owners - particularly in areas that get lots of sun.

Z

I guess I didnt really realize how much energy it takes for as many people are on Earth, especially in cities. I guess what I was getting at is not 1 super large lens boiling a lake or something, but many small ones to provide power to the population of a small town when it can be used during the day. But I think cost and land would be the major problem.

I dont know, I was thinking of something earlier that would use wind and magnified solar energy to power one another and compound in the right conditions. Sometimes my mind wonders... But, Im no electrician, in fact I am really not so fond of working with electricity at all.

You got it!

FWIW, I do think that solar energy for individual home use (whether it is conversion to electricity or simply heating water, etc.) is a good thing to look at - I plan to do some research this summer to see what might be possible. Efficiencies are getting to the point where much (perhaps all?) of the electrical needs of some homes could be entirely solar-generated. It is just not a complete solution for all cases, unfortunately.

Also, we do waste energy and power - plenty of lights are left on too much as a simple example. Malls, Stores, office buildings, malls, etc., waste a lot of light at night ... Yeah, some of the night lighting is warranted, for example for safety reasons in parking lots and streets, but it is amazing how much is simply unnecessary.

In many office buildings (like the one I work in), most lights do go off automatically at night (using motion sensors), but until this becomes commonplace (with better methods too), it will be an energy sinkhole.

For example, In my office, when I am working alone and late at night, the lights go off every 30 minutes or so and I wave my hands above my head to get them back on. But, it isn't just my office/area that comes back on ... the entire section of the floor becomes lit - and most of those office are empty! If there were a way to only locally increase the light at my desk (and leave the others dim perhaps), that would be a big saving!

Z

I totally agree. I try not to leave on lights that arent in use. I also love the timed/motion lights. They have lights on a timer in my storage place where you can set only one section of a hallway from 5 to 60 mins. My moms work years ago used to have motion lights too and as a kid I would try and sneak passed them without them turning on.

szh wrote:Yes, certain point applications make a lot of sense...

Here's one...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&showinfo=0[/youtube]

Great idea but I see major issues with that. Ex: short circuits, snow/ice/plows, car accidents, gridlock traffic...

If they could fool-proof it, that would be fantastic. It would be cool if they could get the funding to build a highways in different parts of the country (X miles long) as an experiment to see how well it works. Phoenix should have one (for heat tolerance), Seattle (for heavy rainfall), Chicago should have one (for moisture and cold resistance), CA should have one (for heavy traffic flow). It would be a cool experiment and we could learn a lot.

nissangirl74 wrote: Northern VA should have one (for heavy traffic flow). It would be a cool experiment and we could learn a lot.

ftfy

It might be a little impractical and a bit ahead of our time IMO, but could work.

As an AZ resident, I cannot understand why more energy isn't collected from the abundant sun. The technology exists.

Yet, solar panels cost ~20-30k. Why? I do have solar water for my home, which was about 5k after tax incentives. Why aren't homes built with panels? My company is finally building parking structures with solar panels to power the admin buildings. As far as asthetics, the panels are usually on a roof and if I was reducing my footprint, I dont care what is on my roof (or any other roof.)

Why? Because then the electric companies would throw a hissy fit. What's even more ironic is if people become more energy efficient, the electric companies moan because they have loss in profits, then jack up the rates to compensate.

I think states such as AZ, should mandate a percentage of green energy in newly constructed homes. And where there isn't sun, there is wind or water, or soil for that matter. I would think that most of the US, yet alone world could be powered courtesy of beautiful mother nature. Erg!!! Greedy companies at the environments' expense

I heard that solar panels may now come in a spray can shortly, I kid you not.

LIke a spray tan? Is this something you've seen on the late night informercials?

BOGO?

h66kEM wrote:Why? Because then the electric companies would throw a hissy fit. What's even more ironic is if people become more energy efficient, the electric companies moan because they have loss in profits, then jack up the rates to compensate.

Not exactly. While they lose a bit of business, they gain a lack of need to keep up with the varied daily demands. Solar energy from a solar panel tends to mimic the demand for energy on a daily basis. That is, the peak demand tends to occur near the same time that a solar panel can capture the greatest amount of energy. If a particular area had enough solar panels to keep up with the change in demand, throughout the day, it means the electric company will not need to turn on more generators to provide more electrical energy.

How much this affects their bottom line depends on local laws governing if or how much they have to pay for the solar energy. In the end, I would anticipate most areas will eventually get to the point where electric companies buy excess energy generation from solar panels (consumers may end up getting money from the electric company). But many areas do not have this in effect yet, so electric companies in this situation get to sell the energy they got for free to the next guy. Even when they have to pay for it, they will likely pay less than they sell the energy for. So they still get to make a profit without much overhead (cost of electrical generation). Its likely the overall size of the infrastructure to generate electricity can be reduced as well.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports ... nsolar.jsp

Fo realz

Interesting but not suprising. I still dont understand how the original post wont be substantial enough to power atleast a few hundred homes per unit. No known material can withstand the intensity of so surely it can generate heat and power from water as a good first start

Indeed. I did not take into account electric companies purchasing electricity from consumers. I still say we have the technology and intelligence to harness all we need from mother nature. Put people to work on green energy!

I dont think quite the technology yet, but definantly in the next 10 years. It might have to do with more cost, efficiency, mass production, and legal cooperations

alms24sebring wrote: legal cooperations

The demise of so many good things

Should we say instead, fiscal cooperation?

Bulk electrical power generation using the obtainable solar energy of a kilowatt per sq. meter can occur when photovoltaic cells decline in worth below ten cents per kilowatt‐hour.

Not to mention, silicon wafers only have like a 13% energy yield. At some point graphene wafers, which have a much more promising yield, will be more affordable to make. I can remember for sure but I think they yield upward of 50%.

Why wait for fusion, when we already have fission? Fusion will be great when we get there, but for now, we really need to increase our fission capacity. If nothing else, Fukashima showed us that fission can be safe. Just need to find people willing to have the reactors in their back yard i guess. I would! (imagine what I could do once I grow my third arm)

How, exactly, did Fukashima show us that nuclear can be safe? There was substantial radioactive contamination and the full effects of the disaster won't be completely understood for years.

I'm not anti-nuke like many progressives, but let's call a fish a fish. All energy production methods which rely on using fuels to generate exothermic reactions have negative potential environmental and health impacts.

There were no global scale problems, and the local problems, from what I've read (admittedly I've not studied it, just read passing things here and there) the local problems are not long standing issues. Though I can understand the local problems making the NIMBY arguments tougher to deal with. Still, nuclear, in my opinions, is nowhere near as utilized as it should be.

Oh and this:

It COULD have been very bad if the reactor blew up is the point. Jet streams would have carried radiation to atleast to the US or further. Chernobyl is still uninhabitable 25 years later and wont be for another 50. Radiation and the nuclear waste it produces is too dangerous to keep around.

^ Not to mention if they have another earthquake.

Try building almost anything that is able to take a tsunami and a 9.0+ earthquake and not suffer some damage. Anything will break if stressed enough.

Speaking of that I heard there was like 6.X one in Japan that created a small tsunami like in late March. Why wasnt that in the news?