Spring RTS Engine

Cheesecan wrote:I agree with tobi, infrared is only about 5% of the sun's spectrum. It's a nice boost when layered though.

An interesting thing is when you look at the solar constant of 1366 W/m┬▓ out in space before the rays go through the atmosphere. That's about 4x what we receive on the ground.

Theoretically we could build some gargantuan solar panels out in space and then beam the electricity back into the earth's ionosphere using Tesla's idea of telepower. We would then have an endless supply of fuel for the whole planet, available anywhere on the globe for all generations to come.

Of course the secretive Bilderberg group would never allow such a thing!!1

I saw some study about catching UltraViolet... which would be awesome.

Theoretically we could build some gargantuan solar panels out in space and then beam the electricity back into the earth's ionosphere using Tesla's idea of telepower

Or space elevators I want my gnX

So no what you actually want is tougher government regulation but that's not going to happen because the Japanese government is notoriously corrupt.

Muh, what? Japan is likelye the country that take safety laws the most seriously!

It's because they are broke and they knew the risks they were taking

If Japan is so capable of enforcing strong safety law, it's because it's one of the richest country in the world, so they are able to afford the extra cost of good safety.


So japanese their governement is the most capable of passing draconian safety regulation, and have them applied, and their industry is rich enough to allow for it. It's evidenced by how few casualty they had from a level 9 earthquake on a super densely populated area. The same earthquake anywhere else in asia, we'd have millions death.

SinbadEV wrote:I saw some study about catching UltraViolet... which would be awesome.

I saw some movie about how one does not simply catch UltraViolet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elIZWU07yAo

It would have been so awesome!

It's not just 5% ..

Cheesecan wrote:I agree with tobi, infrared is only about 5% of the sun's spectrum. It's a nice boost when layered though.

An interesting thing is when you look at the solar constant of 1366 W/m┬▓ out in space before the rays go through the atmosphere. That's about 4x what we receive on the ground.

Theoretically we could build some gargantuan solar panels out in space and then beam the electricity back into the earth's ionosphere using Tesla's idea of telepower. We would then have an endless supply of fuel for the whole planet, available anywhere on the globe for all generations to come.

Of course the secretive Bilderberg group would never allow such a thing!!1

Nah, actually that would just the kind of solar power that would suit the energy industrys interests. Ie it'd be somehting that's centralized so they could constantly sell electricity, compared to land based panels that people could install on their roofs and then they wouldn't buy as much electricity from you anymore.
This isn't any conspiracy either, just pretty simple business sense.

In light of the original purpose of this thread and Nuclear power and safety, this very logn and detailed article written by 2 people, with extensive references and sources cited. Also look at the comments, lots of further links

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/the-da ... fukushima/

Licho wrote:It's not just 5% ..

Sorry I was thinking about sunlight color man-made light sources lol..too much time studying those. Yes the sun does have a lot of IR, luckily for our planet. But I don't think those panels cover the entire infared bandwidth, it's more like 800 to 1200 maybe.

Johannes wrote:

Cheesecan wrote:I agree with tobi, infrared is only about 5% of the sun's spectrum. It's a nice boost when layered though.

An interesting thing is when you look at the solar constant of 1366 W/m┬▓ out in space before the rays go through the atmosphere. That's about 4x what we receive on the ground.

Theoretically we could build some gargantuan solar panels out in space and then beam the electricity back into the earth's ionosphere using Tesla's idea of telepower. We would then have an endless supply of fuel for the whole planet, available anywhere on the globe for all generations to come.

Of course the secretive Bilderberg group would never allow such a thing!!1

Nah, actually that would just the kind of solar power that would suit the energy industrys interests. Ie it'd be somehting that's centralized so they could constantly sell electricity, compared to land based panels that people could install on their roofs and then they wouldn't buy as much electricity from you anymore.
This isn't any conspiracy either, just pretty simple business sense.

You could have both they're not mutually exclusive. But Tesla actually insisted the government was after him because anyone could use his free power, all you need of course is one of these http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lyffe_.PNG
Anyway my post was not sincere if you had not guessed so already.

Perhaps it is time that people in this forum stop looking for one and only one solution to our energy production/consumption ratio.

I say, use what is best in the current situation and location.
A mix of sun, water and wind energy generators would be the most preferable solution, though it would be very costly if we do not use other cheaper ways to harness energy, such as nuclear and oil, untill we have reduced the cost to produce green energy generators.

There are alot of other less used ways to harness energy, and to store it for an extended period of time.

One of my favourite ideas on energy storage and harness is in the following two reactions:

• Ca(OH)2 + Energy ÔåÆ CaO + H2O

• CaO + H2O ÔåÆ Ca(OH)2 + Energy

Two very simple reactions containing 3 very cheap resources and a sizable amount of energy.

There are some major differences between Calcium oxide(CaO) and normal batteries.
Aslong as the CaO is keept away from water and humid air it will be able to store its energy indefinatly, whereas batteries have a limited lifespan.

The same is in regard to the amount of times you "recharge" batteries.
Every time you recharge a battery its lifespan is lowered,
though in some modern batteries this is close to negligible, atleast to the ordinary laymen's eyes.

The chemical reaction mentioned abow however was tested by NASA while they where testing various ways to storage/conserve energy in their spaceflight and possible moon base programs.
And there is almost no energy loss.

I don't remember the exact numbers so i'm reluctant in giving them out, but i think it was something along the lines of:
"10 000 repetitions resulted in less then 0.04% energy loss."

But don't quote me on those numbers, i can't seem to find the report atm, but there is plenty of research documents about this subject, maybe i should reread some of them.

This is of course just a way of storage, you still need a energy source,
though solar was the most obvious choice for NASA, since wind/water is scarce in space.


But my point is that we waste alot of energy, sure we can't use CaO batteries to supply an entire nation during a windless night.

However, if each home would have solar panels and some Calcium hydroxide, Ca(HO)2, they would be able to build up a storage during daytime/summertime and harness energy from CaO during nighttime/wintertime.
Then the populence usage of the nations powergrid would be reduced significantly, allowing it to to focus on suplying energy to the city cores and industrial areas lowering the increasing amount of power shortages, and then we might become less addicted to oil and other fossil fuels.

Just a thought =)

The problem is solar energy and wind energy. Cost. Nowhere anywhere close to as cost efficient as fossil fuels. And won't be until fossil fuels reach something like a couple hundred bucks a barrel iirc.

Efficiency is the problem.

Just find some way to sensibly include their externalised negative effects (and I don't mean just CO2) into fossil fuel prices. But, easier said than done...

Forboding Angel wrote:The problem is solar energy and wind energy. Cost. Nowhere anywhere close to as cost efficient as fossil fuels. And won't be until fossil fuels reach something like a couple hundred bucks a barrel iirc.

Efficiency is the problem.

We're halfway there... and while we're still below the 5 year high the price is trending in a curve that frighteningly resembles a function approaching it's limit... I'm not saying we should stop using fossil fuels (though I'm also very pro-nuclear) but we need to be pouring more money into battery and alternative energy research.

we need to realize, that on a very high propability all our efforts to substain this current lifestyle are doomed to phail- and that they will either end unprepared, with a leap back into darkness and anarchy- or if prepared, into some part-medieval, part-hitech electronic coldsleep. People living a hardship nightmare, while still having the cheap to reproduce electronic luxerys, which allow them still to progress technological, its just a cad-machine, run through a physixsimulation, tested in a game, and replaced by a new idea, never touching reality, except every now and then, to test something. That way, we could take the long road, sleeping for generation, working on fusion, while riding horsecoaches and trains, while fuel is reserved for police, firebrigades, doctors, same going for a lot of other ressources.

Problem only - you wont switch off your computer, explaining to the love of your life, that all of the sudden, the pillows are gone. That the future is not so bright, because that, after some pillowfights, will lead to leaving for a moare scrupoless pillowmaker. So you have to work in silence for this, not bragging about it on internet boards. Oh...

Forboding Angel wrote:The problem is solar energy and wind energy. Cost. Nowhere anywhere close to as cost efficient as fossil fuels. And won't be until fossil fuels reach something like a couple hundred bucks a barrel iirc.

Efficiency is the problem.

Problem with fossil fuels is cost - lack of externalities being included in costs of it.
If it causes enviromental damage (acid rains, millions of respiratory disease deaths/year, land destructioning due to mining..) this damage to society is often not included in the price companies have to pay.

If true cost to society was included, it would not be cheaper.
In fact, coal industry and other fossil fuels is SUBSIDIZED! At least in Germany and USA afaik.

Best way would be to tax it either at mine or at consumption side. Yeah consumer would pay the price, but he pays the price anyway due to increased medical spending or environmental degradation.

Besides wind is cost efficient in some locations and hydro almost always.

Wind is becoming quite common where I live, We have one big wind farm and programs to help business owners afford their own wind turbine....

I certainly think wind is viable in some areas, same goes for solar; although I still believe nuclear power is the most viable. fossil fuels are -NOT- cheaper on a large power generation scale, the price of environmental damage raises...

Just imagine nuclear energy would have to pay, really pay for those thousands years of storage for the fuelrods and the guard personal. Its so lulzy what you can do beyond the warped vision of humanity. Call it a free market and you can get away with nearly every responsibility crime. The Invisible hand was forcing me to do it, not god, not voices, the invisible hand. I hand no choice, but i defended that freedom to have no real choice, and to be under pressure.

I can't believe people still hide behind or condone this invisible hand idea. Are they crazy? The writer of the book (adam smith) explaining that theory didn't mean a fictional invisible hand, he meant an actual invisible hand! He meant the hand of god! He said that it's ok for people to die because of hunger while others swim in their wealth, because the hand of god interferes in the market and makes it so that they do not get money to buy food. He said that this hand of god interferes to create inequality because some people don't deserve a good life, and only a tiny group does (himself included of course). Crazy!

Hoi wrote:I can't believe people still hide behind or condone this invisible hand idea. Are they crazy? The writer of the book (adam smith) explaining that theory didn't mean a fictional invisible hand, he meant an actual invisible hand! He meant the hand of god! He said that it's ok for people to die because of hunger while others swim in their wealth, because the hand of god interferes in the market and makes it so that they do not get money to buy food. He said that this hand of god interferes to create inequality because some people don't deserve a good life, and only a tiny group does (himself included of course). Crazy!

I take it you've never actually read The Wealth of Nations, or any of his books?

Actually, I have read the book.

Whenever people start rubbishing capitalism, I always ask this question:
What is the better alternative economic system?

Communism has been tried and has failed. Name a successful communist state - China doesn't count, it uses state capitalism. Barter is inefficient and essentially proto-capitalism. The gift economy won't work until we have widespread universal fabricators. So what is the solution?

\back on topic:
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/02/the-lost-world/
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

For some articles that accurately reflects on the problems within the modern Green movement. Opposition to nuclear power and the perceived industrial evil that created it was once a clarion call for the environmentalist movement. Now the debate over what to replace it with (or indeed whether to replace it at all) is fostering all sorts of divisions within.