'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

Dave, please take a look at this - pebble bed reactors

These are gas cooled and CANNOT melt down. You're thinking of the ancient designs used in current reactors where you have fuel rods and control rods and a very complex liquid cooling system that can malfunction if not maintained properly. The only issue with pebble beds is if you have a damaged pebbles - but that will cause a minor release of radiation at most. It will not and cannot cause a melt down.

Building a water cooled reactor when you could build one of these instead is just stupid. If someone wanted to build a pebble bed reactor in my area, I wouldn't object. If they tried to build a water cooled, control rod style reactor, I would be out there chaining myself to bulldozers.

---

Twiliyt the pebble reactors are not 100% safe. HUMAN error is the No. 1 risk to all nuclear. Just like it was with every accident. Human error. :(

Dave@ Chernobyle was a baby accident compared to what almost happened there. Due to the selfless sacrifice of 2 navy divers, they prevented a Thermo Vapor explosion of 1000's of gallojns of flooded water that estimates had written would poison all of europe and kill 30million. Nuclear is great.... until one of these countries goes to war... and Power stations get sabotaged by lunatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

The only thing I saw on that link was a refereence to graphite..
Do you know what kind of reactor was at Chernobyl?
Yup, Graphite..
It has an amazing abilty to absorb heat but once" overloaded" it flashes back that heat.
I read an interesting article in National Geographic a few years back doing a timeline of what happenned at Chernobyl.
It was broken down into the millionth's of a second.
At one point they said the inside of that reactor was app 1/10th of the temp of the surface of the sun when it flashed that stored heat back.
It scares me that people would go with a potentially catastrophic technology when there are such safe ones available.
The logic just isn't there so it must be driven by the pursuit of money.
There is just no other logical answer..
Here's a simple way to look at it:
Would you rather have a Nuclear plant as your next door neighbor or a farm of solar panels?

---

It needs oxygen for combustion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Twiliyt the pebble reactors are not 100% safe. HUMAN error is the No. 1 risk to all nuclear. Just like it was with every accident. Human error. :(

Dave@ Chernobyle was a baby accident compared to what almost happened there. Due to the selfless sacrifice of 2 navy divers, they prevented a Thermo Vapor explosion of 1000's of gallojns of flooded water that estimates had written would poison all of europe and kill 30million. Nuclear is great.... until one of these countries goes to war... and Power stations get sabotaged by lunatics.

---

I know, I've done a lot of reading on that accident.
You read some of the stories of the Russian military guys that just kept going back in when they were told they had taken too may REM's and they went anyway.
You read what I read and it would bring tears to your eyes.
The word hero is tossed around very easily today.
\Those guys defined the word in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I know, I've done a lot of reading on that accident.
You read some of the stories of the Russian military guys that just kept going back in when they were told they had taken too may REM's and they went anyway.
You read what I read and it would bring tears to your eyes.
The word hero is tossed around very easily today.
\Those guys defined the word in my opinion.

---

Yep. They went to the local military diving school... asked for volunteers to help. Said they needed two guys and that they were never going to make it back.

They all volunteered. :(:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Twiliyt the pebble reactors are not 100% safe. HUMAN error is the No. 1 risk to all nuclear. Just like it was with every accident. Human error. :(

---

True, but with a regular reactor, the worst that happens is that it melts down. It wouldn't go to china though, since the heat at the core of our planet is probably driven by radioactive decay of uranium. So once it gets to the center of the earth it will either kill all the dinosaurs hiding there or merge with the core. OT I know, but it seemed like a fun tangent.

With PBR's, the worst that happens is the reactor doesn't work. The pebbles will survive without any active cooling - unlike the Chernobyl design, which as I recall was considered a poorly designed reactor.

Well the reactor in Chernobyl was designed with an inherent flaw. When moving the control rods there comes a time when the power actually peaks before subsides. On the day of the accident a unfamiliar team of guys went on shift and were ordered to proceed with the experiment that the regular guys didn't get a chance to get done. Many mistakes compounded one after the other precipitated the disaster. Not the reactor itself... but the guys, and of course the idiot supervisor who asked for the experiment to go ahead were the cause. When they saw the power peaking they added more coolant... not realising that this would acutlaly speed up the reaction. By the zenith of the incident the reactor was producing 10 times its designed power output. These reactors are really animals of their own character. They need teams of guys ALL the time that are familiar with it... like in the good 'ol days, you had a guy manning a steam boiler who knew its 'character'. The reactors change how they behave as they consume the fuel. The many many istopes change how it works. It needs a lot different treatment when it has been producing for a while that on a fresh fuel charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

oh yeah... the only problem photovoltaic has right now is price, if it gest cheaper, lets say 2-3€ per m² and has a efficency of 2-3% hell yeah i take that any day over nuclear energy. With that price efficency doesn't matter. I just plaster my roof with that.

Nuclear energy is only a short term solution, we already consume more uran than it is mined and it doesn't get better, there are 93 plants planed worldwide with 24 in china alone.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info.html

---

19 here in France :D

from wiki.fr

I don't know how is power in other country, but there it's never power loss !!!

How is power in us ? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

True, but with a regular reactor, the worst that happens is that it melts down. It wouldn't go to china though, since the heat at the core of our planet is probably driven by radioactive decay of uranium. So once it gets to the center of the earth it will either kill all the dinosaurs hiding there or merge with the core. OT I know, but it seemed like a fun tangent.

With PBR's, the worst that happens is the reactor doesn't work. The pebbles will survive without any active cooling - unlike the Chernobyl design, which as I recall was considered a poorly designed reactor.

---

I think you have this wrong. The China Syndrome is a misnomer as what happens is it does "meltdown" till it hits groundwater then the sudden huge amount of steam generated causes an explosion and the radioactive parts are tossed into the atmosphere upto and including the troposphere..From there it is into the wind currents and depending on the weight of the particles drops to earth or is carried in the winds till rain drops the particles..
The basic point to me is that since ONE error can be so catastrophic, why would any sane person choose this technology over solar,wind,hydro or geothermal?
Now I may not be the smartest person alive but I'm no dunce either.
I just can't see the logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I think you have this wrong. The China Syndrome is a misnomer as what happens is it does "meltdown" till it hits groundwater then the sudden huge amount of steam generated causes an explosion and the radioactive parts are tossed into the atmosphere upto and including the troposphere..From there it is into the wind currents and depending on the weight of the particles drops to earth or is carried in the winds till rain drops the particles..
The basic point to me is that since ONE error can be so catastrophic, why would any sane person choose this technology over solar,wind,hydro or geothermal?
Now I may not be the smartest person alive but I'm no dunce either.
I just can't see the logic.

---

OK, you REALLY couldn't tell I was joking? Anyway, I keep saying that current designs are bad so on that score we agree. You need to look at the PBR's I linked to above. These are designed precisely to deal with the issues you're raising.

Just thinking on a commercial here in TV from the goverment. Its about old lightblubs vs those little more expensive power saving onces.

Its not the cheapest one No, but it will be.

Same thing with solar cells and such.

And the guarantie from the factories are 20-25years on solar cells. That doesnt mean they stop working after that time like some seem to think. Your tray CPU from newegg didnt stop working either after 90 days, did it? :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

OK, you REALLY couldn't tell I was joking? Anyway, I keep saying that current designs are bad so on that score we agree. You need to look at the PBR's I linked to above. These are designed precisely to deal with the issues you're raising.

---

ok, sorry, I tend in this kind of thread to shut off my sense of humor.
BUT back to my question dear sir:
Which would you rather have as your neighbor?
A solar farm or a nuclear power plant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

ok, sorry, I tend in this kind of thread to shut off my sense of humor.
BUT back to my question dear sir:
Which would you rather have as your neighbor?
A solar farm or a nuclear power plant?

---

I've already said that if they decided to build a PBR near me I wouldn't object. But it depends on how much land we're talking about. How big would the solar farm have to be to equal the output of a nuclear reactor? Around here, land is very expensive. You can pay $250k for just a building lot. So the fact of the matter is that it's unlikely anyone would want to build either.

But to answer your question, yes, I definitely prefer wind and solar over nuclear. My only point is that nuclear isn't your father's Oldsmobile. Things have changed a lot in 30 years and PBR's while not absolutely idiot proof are pretty damn close. If we can generate enough power with wind and solar in an accelerated time frame, I'm all for it. But we shouldn't exclude nuclear based on disasters associated with antiquated technology.

Very interesting, could prove to be a rather useful technology. Just add to this a few thorium breeder reactors and let's start over-generating electricity. Next step, cutting back on consumption.

More about pebble reactors... http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html

Hmmm an organization called three mile island alert huh? Will have to see how objective they are. In the meantime here are some other opinions.

Basic physics guarantees that PBR's cannot melt down.

Quote:

---

In the pebble bed reactor high temperature U238 atoms absorb neutrons to prevent run away overheating. At normal operating temperatures the U238 atoms have a low probability of absorbing a neutron, because the relative velocities of the neutron and U238 must be within a narrow range. The process is said to have a low cross section for absorbtion of the neutron by U238. As the reactor heats the U238 atoms vibrate more rapidly, increasing the chance the neutron and U238 nucleus will have the right relative velocity to absorb a neutron. This is called Doppler broadening, much like the Doppler effect that raises the pitch of oncoming train whistles. The captured neutrons can not further the U235 chain reaction, so as the reactor heats up the chain reaction is checked and the temperature approaches a steady state.

---

http://bp0.blogger.com/_RTLViDJEQdY/...raturerise.jpg

China has a working PBR and they have been used before in the US

Quote:

---

There are many things about pebble bed reactors that fascinate me, but one of them is the fact that they can be configured to be able to withstand a complete loss of cooling without causing any core damage. As long as each reactor unit produces less than 400 MW of thermal energy, operators can turn off the cooling circulators and walk away knowing that the plant will heat up a bit, shut itself down, and never exceed a temperature at which any fuel damage will occur. Now that is a hot idea whose time has come!

---

One word people.

OVERPOPULATION!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thor_1987

One word people.

OVERPOPULATION!

---

That too. But we have to hear about humanity crap then. Atleast China is doing something actively.

A Thorium "reactor" actually sounds pretty interesting. And the best part is that its not selfsustaining.

I thought this might be relevant to the OP: http://www.physorg.com/news136737643.html

best overall source for clean fuel ALGEA

Solar and wind and hydro for homes Algea products for auto and heating oil.


too bad it won't ever happen even when its cost effective :(

some reading material for everyone

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advan...efficient.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iboomalot

best overall source for clean fuel ALGEA

Solar and wind and hydro for homes Algea products for auto and heating oil.


too bad it won't ever happen even when its cost effective :(

some reading material for everyone

http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advan...efficient.html

---

Using food as fuel isn't a good idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Using food as fuel isn't a good idea...

---

Reading the page before commenting on it is a good idea.

If the algenol thing is true then it looks awesome.

There are nuclear options that dont involve radioactivity.

And the algae option seems great.

In the last 6mo I have flown from San Fransisco to Albuquerque many times. There are VAST stretches of land in which you see not a single house.

There are options. It is just obvious that we are not at the point in which we must research and implement them.

Solar IMO is not the option though. It has been known for along time that it takes more energy to produce the panels than they get out over their lifetime. But that is just the current technology. That doesnt mean that energy from solar is not plausible, just not in its current form.

alternatives will come on line when they are economical compared to oil. Realistically oil is pretty damn cheap when you think about it, ~ the same as a gallon of milk.

Its just now becoming economical for alternative energy to be brought on line. Once alternatives begin being implemented and research starts going towards those alternatives they will further fall in price. Its just a matter of time; theres no grand conspiracy to keep alternatives from being developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bartsimsonii

Reading the page before commenting on it is a good idea.

If the algenol thing is true then it looks awesome.

---

My comment is not related to algenol directly, as algae is not food. It was targeted at that biofuel crap. Changing oil for something even worse availavility wise is stupid. Also it is not clean by any means. Just an intermediate step to the real revolution. This intermediate steps are our worst enemy IMO.

Did any of you guys get my message that 90-95% of the total energy used in the world comes from gasoline (oil, petroleum) that we use out there for transportation (the energy that we use in home is nothing compared to the energy we use to get from point A to point B, or the energy used for shipping goods)?

Like in the US, an average piece of food that you eat travels 1500 miles, and for an average Canadian, the food has travelled 5000 miles? Think about what we use to mine for Uranium in the first place? A huge amount of diesel!

Think about it, an average Joe's majority of energy usage comes from driving that 2-ton SUV to work everyday. The energy required for hauling that SUV for a couple hours is probably equal to the energy required to cool or heat your house for 1 week in the summer or winter.

I think that we should just ban everybody from driving SUV's unless they are actually going camping or moving some furniture. Otherwise, the prices will eventually ban us from doing so, as the gas prices continue to rise thanks to our foolish indulgence. Like driving while talking on cell phones are banned in California, right? In big cities, it is not allowed to drive on "car-pool" lanes if you do not have anybody else riding with you. I think we should just start enforcing some kind of a law, since it drives me nuts how people drive huge 6-liter V8 pickup trucks to work everyday for no apparent reason despite paying so much for the gas.

When I was visiting Canada, I saw some people driving those mini cars on the freeway. I mean, those cars were like European mini cars, half the size of Mini Coopers. There should be a law requiring that if a person buys a V-6 automobile for over $25000, that person should already possess a mini-car for everyday driving for 1-2 people. Of course, it could be kinda difficult to enforce such a law, but it should at least do wonders in encouraging the ignorant average American from being so indulgent for no reason.

I mean, there are already so many ridiculous laws around here. This new law would probably benefit the world 1000000 times more than some other silly law already in effect.

Just what we need is the government further telling us what we can and cant do. That is the last thing the world needs.

No thanks. I would prefer the market to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

Just what we need is the government further telling us what we can and cant do. That is the last thing the world needs.

No thanks. I would prefer the market to do that.

---

Putting too much faith in the market, or letting the economy tell you what to do, eh?


If you rather wait until the price of gas quadruples again as it did from 1999 to 2007, the economy will crumble as we know it. Unless we completely conquer the Arab nations, we'll be at the mercy of the market (the World Bank Organization). Should we just keep on driving those SUV's until the gas prices rise to like $16 per gallon? Then when we finally decide that it's too much money, the gas prices eventually drive the food and energy costs way past what's affordable for the lower class. I do not think we have started to see the real effects of the oil prices driving the prices of everything else just yet (we will see that it's definitely not "ordinary" inflation).

Sometimes, we need the law to tell us how to be "sane" before it's too late!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Putting too much faith in the market, or letting the economy tell you what to do, eh?


If you rather wait until the price of gas quadruples again as it did from 1999 to 2007, the economy will crumble as we know it. Unless we completely conquer the Arab nations, we'll be at the mercy of the market (the World Bank Organization). Should we just keep on driving those SUV's until the gas prices rise to like $16 per gallon? Then when we finally decide that it's too much money, the gas prices eventually drive the food and energy costs way past what's affordable for the lower class. I do not think we have started to see the real effects of the oil prices driving the prices of everything else just yet (we will see that it's definitely not "ordinary" inflation).

Sometimes, we need the law to tell us how to be "sane" before it's too late!

---

do you have any idea how things work? you wanna blame anybody for the price of gas? blame the federal reserve. there is no shortage of anything. but yet the prices continue to climb. why? because there is more money available but not more goods and services for that money to "break even with". so prices go up. get used to the fact that the game is rigged.

you know there is one fact about the fed that i will never understand adn why people are ok with going along with it. lets pretend there is no money in existence. the federal reserve is created and prints a hundred dollars. so now there is 100.00 dollars in existence. everybody knows the fed doesnt do this for free, they charge interest. we'll say 3 percent on that hundred dollars. whoever takes that hundred dollars at 3 percent interest WILL NEVER be able to pay that debt back. why? because there is only 100.00 dollars in existence and once you take the loan you cant pay back the debt with money that doesnt exist. if somebody has more to add to this id love to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofahb

do you have any idea how things work? you wanna blame anybody for the price of gas? blame the federal reserve. there is no shortage of anything. but yet the prices continue to climb. why? because there is more money available but not more goods and services for that money to "break even with". so prices go up. get used to the fact that the game is rigged.

you know there is one fact about the fed that i will never understand adn why people are ok with going along with it. lets pretend there is no money in existence. the federal reserve is created and prints a hundred dollars. so now there is 100.00 dollars in existence. everybody knows the fed doesnt do this for free, they charge interest. we'll say 3 percent on that hundred dollars. whoever takes that hundred dollars at 3 percent interest WILL NEVER be able to pay that debt back. why? because there is only 100.00 dollars in existence and once you take the loan you cant pay back the debt with money that doesnt exist. if somebody has more to add to this id love to hear.

---

A hundred dollars is much more because of the multiplier effect. That 100 is used to pay other people who put it in banks who then loan money on that 100 to people who pay the money to other people who do the same and so on and so on.

The fed if anything has saved our butts. My only criticism is that they should have acted sooner by cutting rates and not over the prolonged period which it took them. The problem now is NOT the money supply, it is the fact that banks have liquidity problems because of the credit crisis/mortgage crisis and are unwilling to lend even to credit worthy customers.

The other criticism I would have is that either they or the treasury should have imposed regulations that would have prohibited loans that could not pass very basic underwriting criteria. That is being resolved now by forcing banks who originate loans to keep them on their books. Previously, you could resell the loan which would then be packaged as a mortgage backed security and there would be no trace of it on your balance sheet and you would have no liability if the loan went south. That's why the banks were so lax with underwriting standards - because they knew the loans would be resold, gone and forgotten.

Let's get back to solar and this "breakthrough"
Maybe I might still be aboveground when it makes it to the market.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twilyth

A hundred dollars is much more because of the multiplier effect. That 100 is used to pay other people who put it in banks who then loan money on that 100 to people who pay the money to other people who do the same and so on and so on.

The fed if anything has saved our butts. My only criticism is that they should have acted sooner by cutting rates and not over the prolonged period which it took them. The problem now is NOT the money supply, it is the fact that banks have liquidity problems because of the credit crisis/mortgage crisis and are unwilling to lend even to credit worthy customers.

The other criticism I would have is that either they or the treasury should have imposed regulations that would have prohibited loans that could not pass very basic underwriting criteria. That is being resolved now by forcing banks who originate loans to keep them on their books. Previously, you could resell the loan which would then be packaged as a mortgage backed security and there would be no trace of it on your balance sheet and you would have no liability if the loan went south. That's why the banks were so lax with underwriting standards - because they knew the loans would be resold, gone and forgotten.

---

thats a good explaination but you are leaving out one fact. the fed prints ALL of the money. so my point in a nutshell is that no matter what society will never get out of debt. because you cannot repay a debt with physical cash that DOES not exist. i know money goes through a complicated tree of hands and through avenues and what not.

and i have to ask how does the fed save our butts when all they are doing is forcibly stealing from all of us(by devaluing the currency)? my grandpa has about 10 million dollars. not all in cash but alot of it is. now ive seen estimates that the fed has printed 4 trillion dollars in the last three years alone to "save our butts" and devalue the currency 10 percent. so if that true then my grandpa who has 10 million now has 9 million because the value is 10 percent less. thats stealing. i cant print counterfeit now why should the fed?

Our moderator has determined this to be off topic (which it is) so we can't pursue it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

Solar IMO is not the option though. It has been known for along time that it takes more energy to produce the panels than they get out over their lifetime. But that is just the current technology. That doesnt mean that energy from solar is not plausible, just not in its current form.

---

Thats the biggest pile of BS ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Thats the biggest pile of BS ever.

---

I was just thinking to myself, Dont solar panals last a matter of years? My mate has one on his roof, as he works alot, and isn't home using loads of power, he is currently making more money than he pays for electricity, not just breaking even. Therefore it will have payed for itself in only a few years.

When I sayed payed for itself, I mean what he payed for it, including his monitoring system, and all installation costs and having it setup to put electricity back in the grid. Not the manufaction cost which is a fraction of this.

Edit: The more solar panals we buy, the cheaper they are to produce, and the more companies will invest in the technology, making them more efficient and cheaper to purchase, should every one house have one, we would be a far greener planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The0men

I was just thinking to myself, Dont solar panals last a matter of years? My mate has one on his roof, as he works alot, and isn't home using loads of power, he is currently making more money than he pays for electricity, not just breaking even. Therefore it will have payed for itself in only a few years.

When I sayed payed for itself, I mean what he payed for it, including his monitoring system, and all installation costs and having it setup to put electricity back in the grid. Not the manufaction cost which is a fraction of this.

Edit: The more solar panals we buy, the cheaper they are to produce, and the more companies will invest in the technology, making them more efficient and cheaper to purchase, should every one house have one, we would be a far greener planet.

---

It takes about 5-6 years here to break even. And the panels will last atleast 25 years under guarantie.

But the more power than they produce is utter BS. I would really want to see some edvidence behind that. And it would most likely be just as good as the cigerattes dont cause cancer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

Just what we need is the government further telling us what we can and cant do. That is the last thing the world needs.

No thanks. I would prefer the market to do that.

---

Humans are utterly stupid and self greedy without regulation. So yes, we need more goverment regulation to change our behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Humans are utterly stupid and self greedy without regulation. So yes, we need more goverment regulation to change our behaviour.

---

I partially disagree. Yes many humans are utterly stupid and greedy but the idea is to have social structures in place to limit such activity. Why have regulation when you can just use domestication? Though this point is off topic. Since they have failed to address the more important issue of efficiency which is the primary weakness of solar power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

It takes about 5-6 years here to break even. And the panels will last atleast 25 years under guarantie.

But the more power than they produce is utter BS. I would really want to see some edvidence behind that. And it would most likely be just as good as the cigerattes dont cause cancer!

---

Exactly what I was getting at. If they need more power to manufacture than they produce, you'd never break even.

I think we have decent rebates on alternitive energy here, we do on solar anyway.

Remember it took a law to get seat belts into all cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurz

Remember it took a law to get seat belts into all cars.

---

and people still refuse to use em. :p:

Wow. This thread sure got popular.

I'd like to address a few key points (imo) on this thread:

1) Solar panels cost more to produce than they put out in their entire lifetime. And it's a "well known fact". Is it now? Any evidence to support this claim?

2) As Dave said, even if pebble bed reactors are much safe, why risk radiation poisoning when you don't have to?

3) We don't need the government to tell us what to do. We are smart enough to think for ourselves (otherwise we wouldn't be here and have our custom built computers), but Average Joe Drives-A-V8 doesn't. He needs to be taught, regulated and monitored until he can think for himself. It is in my belief that people should not have certain rights (such as the right to vote) until they prove that they are worthy of those rights by going through a series of tests (mainly logic tests).

4) While solar panels may not be enough for everyone around the world to power all their needs (consider future electric cars as well), it is a good start. While I do believe that a planet-wide electrical grid where every home has solar panels and gives the extra energy to the grid and the ones that don't have enough can pay more for the extra they need would be sufficient (it would also be a small way of balancing wealth throughout the world by a bit as north american Joe will pay for some of his electricity while Habib from Somalia will actually be payed for the electricity his solar panels are providing) .... we could install wind, hydro and geothermal plants wherever possible to ensure a little extra if we should need it. (Boy, that was a long sentence! :p: )
I wouldn't want the entire world's power grid to be based on solar panels. A nuclear winter would hurt us then much harder.

5) When thinking of solar panels, don't think of just powering your homes. Think of powering everything. Cars, cell phones.... everything. If enough money is invested into this technology we would see some really amazing things we can't even imagine now. Consider a thin strip of solar cells that you can attach to any surface like you would a post-it that can then wirelessly power any devices nearby. Now consider that that strip can be folded to fit into your wallet and unfolded to fit the roof of your car. Now consider that if you really are a petrol head, nobody would bother you from driving your big V8 down the road when 99% of the population is green. Because your carbon footprint just doesn't matter anymore.

this is even more important than the news suggest!
it doesnt only affect solar engery, it can be used overall to create hydrogen eficiently and means we can use hydrogen as the new energy carrier in future!

now we just need to find a eficient way to store the hydrogen, and then the cycle coses, eficient hydrogen production, eficient storage, eficient usage (fusion cell)

really nice...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

this is even more important than the news suggest!
it doesnt only affect solar engery, it can be used overall to create hydrogen eficiently and means we can use hydrogen as the new energy carrier in future!

now we just need to find a eficient way to store the hydrogen, and then the cycle coses, eficient hydrogen production, eficient storage, eficient usage (fusion cell)

really nice...!

---

Already done 3 years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0907102549.htm

Awesome. Once again, this topic is about efficiently storing solar energy. With an abundant supply of fuel cells, that would do tremendous wonders in reducing our insane dependency on gasoline. Almost everything we have (farming, transporatation, mining, etc..) comes from the energy provided by gasoline.

I guess we just need to keep at it with faith in technology. Or should I say, wisdom? Like the Bible saying that Wisdom is the Principal thing, huh? LOL...

I mean, more efficient solar photovoltaic cells, more efficient means of rotating solar mirror panels boiling water for central energy, more efficient storage into fuel or fusion cells or some other rechargeable batteries for powering everything in the home (let's say one HUGE fuel cell next to the central AC that serves as "auxiliary" power supply), etc... etc... We could set up a huge solar power plant somewhere on a sunny beach and just direct all that sunlight into a controlled furnace in the water, and then generate electricity from the rising steam. Talk about endless supply!

sonofahb, talking about the Federal Reserve is probably best done elsewhere, IMHO. I do not think this thread can handle opening a whole new can of worms here about the Reserve Bank and Congress being supposed to domestically regulate and issue money without owing the banks anything (as it used to be before the Civil War, and still a part of the Bill of the Rights amendment). Perhaps it's more of a global issue, but should we have such a cynical approach as suggested in your post? If those rich bankers want to let the world destroy itself first, then those bankers can be sure of their own destruction in their newly created "hell" surrounding them on all sides (6-9 billion starving homeless people wanting to strip them naked)! Man, that kind of life would suck like hell. I think the government kind of knows better and wants to encourage technology/education for the sake of peace and prosperity rather than unscrupulous exploitation of Capitalism that can only fall before the knees of those bankers. Heck, most of the government is made up of those bankers in the first place. Does those bankers want their own kids to live in a world that knows how to maintain goodwill and peaceful cooperation, or in a world that is set on its path towards a fervent fight for food and oil? In short words, do they want the world to turn into a nuclear hell for their own kids, or not?

A good way to look at money is that it is an universal "agreement" among all. If we're all educated and intelligent, we'll all spend money wisely on what we know to be the best for our futures, therefore, there lies the constructiveness of the whole "money" concept. As long as we're smart, we're in control of the corporations, or Capitalism, for better, not for worse. Even lending and borrowing is a form of agreement in the first place. That way, we are not so easily swayed by the concept that "money is the root of all evil."

Man, I got sidetracked here, offtopic! Sorry moderator, I'll stop now!

Wait, this "Major Discovery" by MIT is EXACTLY the experiment I did in my Chemistry class two semesters ago. We achieved about 20% efficiency when using the solar electricity to split the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and then recombine them. My professor has a machine rigged at his home giving him some power day and night. The experiment was something the school has been doing for the last 3 years and it was just a community college. WTF MIT?

I just checked and I still have my handout on the lab. WTF MIT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar

Wait, this "Major Discovery" by MIT is EXACTLY the experiment I did in my Chemistry class two semesters ago.

---

So you made...
Quote: The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water.
The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water. ???

The specific composition and process have not been revealed. Well not to my knowledge. Please correct me if im wrong.
So how is it... EXACTLY?

This should probably go in its own thread, but since it is closely related, here is a technique that will break down water using just sunlight.

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

"We have copied nature, taking the elements and mechanisms found in plant life that have evolved over 3 billion years and recreated one of those processes in the laboratory," Professor Spiccia said.

"A manganese cluster is central to a plant's ability to use water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to make carbohydrates and oxygen. Man-made mimics of this cluster were developed by Professor Charles Dismukes some time ago, and we've taken it a step further, harnessing the ability of these molecules to convert water into its component elements, oxygen and hydrogen," Professor Spiccia said.

"The breakthrough came when we coated a proton conductor, called Nafion, onto an anode to form a polymer membrane just a few micrometres thick, which acts as a host for the manganese clusters."

"Normally insoluble in water, when we bound the catalyst within the pores of the Nafion membrane, it was stabilised against decomposition and, importantly, water could reach the catalyst where it was oxidised on exposure to light."

This process of "oxidizing" water generates protons and electrons, which can be converted into hydrogen gas instead of carbohydrates as in plants.

"Whilst man has been able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen for years, we have been able to do the same thing for the first time using just sunlight, an electrical potential of 1.2 volts and the very chemical that nature has selected for this purpose," Professor Spiccia said

Testing revealed the catalyst assembly was still active after three days of continuous use, producing oxygen and hydrogen gas in the presence of water, an electrical potential and visible light.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pyroe_Inc

So you made...
Quote: The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water.
The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water. ???

The specific composition and process have not been revealed. Well not to my knowledge. Please correct me if im wrong.
So how is it... EXACTLY?

---

You can do it with copper rods, you should look up the browns gas generators that people are attaching to the intake manifold of their cars to get better fuel mileage.

Using surfactants may increase the gas generation at lower voltages though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Awesome. Once again, this topic is about efficiently storing solar energy. With an abundant supply of fuel cells, that would do tremendous wonders in reducing our insane dependency on gasoline. Almost everything we have (farming, transporatation, mining, etc..) comes from the energy provided by gasoline.

I guess we just need to keep at it with faith in technology. Or should I say, wisdom? Like the Bible saying that Wisdom is the Principal thing, huh? LOL...

I mean, more efficient solar photovoltaic cells, more efficient means of rotating solar mirror panels boiling water for central energy, more efficient storage into fuel or fusion cells or some other rechargeable batteries for powering everything in the home (let's say one HUGE fuel cell next to the central AC that serves as "auxiliary" power supply), etc... etc... We could set up a huge solar power plant somewhere on a sunny beach and just direct all that sunlight into a controlled furnace in the water, and then generate electricity from the rising steam. Talk about endless supply!

sonofahb, talking about the Federal Reserve is probably best done elsewhere, IMHO. I do not think this thread can handle opening a whole new can of worms here about the Reserve Bank and Congress being supposed to domestically regulate and issue money without owing the banks anything (as it used to be before the Civil War, and still a part of the Bill of the Rights amendment). Perhaps it's more of a global issue, but should we have such a cynical approach as suggested in your post? If those rich bankers want to let the world destroy itself first, then those bankers can be sure of their own destruction in their newly created "hell" surrounding them on all sides (6-9 billion starving homeless people wanting to strip them naked)! Man, that kind of life would suck like hell. I think the government kind of knows better and wants to encourage technology/education for the sake of peace and prosperity rather than unscrupulous exploitation of Capitalism that can only fall before the knees of those bankers. Heck, most of the government is made up of those bankers in the first place. Does those bankers want their own kids to live in a world that knows how to maintain goodwill and peaceful cooperation, or in a world that is set on its path towards a fervent fight for food and oil? In short words, do they want the world to turn into a nuclear hell for their own kids, or not?

A good way to look at money is that it is an universal "agreement" among all. If we're all educated and intelligent, we'll all spend money wisely on what we know to be the best for our futures, therefore, there lies the constructiveness of the whole "money" concept. As long as we're smart, we're in control of the corporations, or Capitalism, for better, not for worse. Even lending and borrowing is a form of agreement in the first place. That way, we are not so easily swayed by the concept that "money is the root of all evil."

Man, I got sidetracked here, offtopic! Sorry moderator, I'll stop now!

---

funny how he suggest my topic doesnt belong here and then in the same paragraph comments on my posts. lol.

the military has been working on ways to "humanely" deal with large crowds of rioting people for at least a decade now. thats why the arseholes in charge dont give a damn about us. and they arent worried about pissing off the masses when they have sonic microwave deflectors that can control thousands of people from one single unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofahb

funny how he suggest my topic doesnt belong here and then in the same paragraph comments on my posts. lol.

the military has been working on ways to "humanely" deal with large crowds of rioting people for at least a decade now. thats why the arseholes in charge dont give a damn about us. and they arent worried about pissing off the masses when they have sonic microwave deflectors that can control thousands of people from one single unit.

---

Rich people aren't rich without poor people being poor. If poor people don't work, rich people don't make money. Having to microwave us means we're not working. Never going to happen. End of discussion. Talk about solar panels now. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Since they have failed to address the more important issue of efficiency which is the primary weakness of solar power.

---

humans have nothing against wrecking the environment (in the case of "inefficient solar panels" that would be visually) to produce power if the price is right, so i'd say the primary weakness of current solar cells is their price-per-watt, rather than their efficiency

actually the most important thing in the future is to reduce energy used by houses

here in europe passive houses already cost only 1-10 % more than normal houses and you save ALOT of money on heating costs!

my uncle is living in a passive house right now (200m²) and guess how much he pays for heating (water too!)?


200€ - and that's for the WHOLE YEAR

seriously the easiest thing we can do right now is to convert old buildings into passive houses (costs about 18% more than complete renovation with conventional heating + energy saving methods) and make laws so new houses are restricted to passive and zero-energy buildings only :up:

by converting old buildings you save around 85% of heating costs, in new houses it's even possible to produce more energy than required for heating :up:


seriously the law HAS to force people to build energy efficient houses because they are too STUPID to do this by themelves and if it's planned correctly you have almost no additinal costs or save them within 5 years because of the lower heating bill :rolleyes:


only problem is that there aren't enough companies capable of building such houses and people still believe that they have a bad air quality because you can't open the windows which isn't true as all the air in a passive house gets exchanged every 4-5 hours with a very efficient ventilation system :shakes:

Yeah, passive houses are the future for reducing energy. I have plans for building one..
And there is EU initiative towards the mandatory passive house design, at least it will speed things out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

You can do it with copper rods, you should look up the browns gas generators that people are attaching to the intake manifold of their cars to get better fuel mileage.

Using surfactants may increase the gas generation at lower voltages though...

---

I do know a little, about electrolysis. If that's what you mean. Well enough to know that, there can be an awfull lot of variables, to the entire "concept".
I didn't mean to offend, albeit I can see that it was written somewhat hars'ly. :shakes: :down: