|
Grex > Agora56 > #149: KLUDGE REPORT IV (?) GRAB YOUR COATS, EVERYBODY -- Here Comes Global Cooling | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 34 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 34:
| 
Mar 4 07:36 UTC 2006 |
What about the radioactive wastes?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
Mar 4 12:40 UTC 2006 |
Sure, there is waste from Nuclear power generation, but it is
consolidated and contained. We can store it instead of spilling it out
into the air. Once pollution is in the air, there isn't much we can do
about getting rid of it. And by using fast breeder reactors, we can
recycle spent nuclear fuel. And the waste from a fast breeder reactor is
radioactive for only 50 years, not for tens of thousands of years like
with a pressurized water reactor.
|
slynne
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
Mar 4 14:07 UTC 2006 |
resp:19 But that doesnt mean that solar isnt an option for people in
northern areas. Check out this site for a house in Maine:
http://www.solarhouse.com/
That doesnt mean that I am against nuclear energy though. I think that
it certainly is an option that should be pursued.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
Mar 4 18:05 UTC 2006 |
Major considerations many of you seem to be ignoring:
1. What is the cost of being worse off through using cheaper fuels
(i.e. oil)?
2. If alternative fuels became cheaper, don't you think that those who
control oil supplies (and whose cost for producing a barrel of oil is
probably around $10 or less) wouldn't reduce their price in order to
drive the alternative fuel producers out of business? If so, then who
would be willing to finance alternative fuel production (assuming only
people who don't want to lose money will do so)??
|
bru
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
Mar 4 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I am really interested in the idea of teh solar chimney ir solar tower energy
projects.
I learned about the project last night.
|
keesan
|
|
response 25 of 34:
|
Mar 5 13:05 UTC 2006 |
Would it be a whole lot more difficult to import electricity from the tropics
than to import oil from halfway around the world?
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 34:
|
Mar 5 13:12 UTC 2006 |
probably. But we have a 300 year supply of coal if we need to use it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 34:
|
Mar 5 13:39 UTC 2006 |
Solar electricity is much cleaner than coal-generated and does not contribute
to global warming. It might even be cheaper to generate.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 28 of 34:
|
Mar 5 14:02 UTC 2006 |
Actually keesan, the development of a room-temperature superconductor
would allow us to transport solar electricity generated in the tropics
all across the world. But as it is now, wire resistance is too much for
continental power transmission.
My brother in law was telling me that he read about a transparent solar
panel being developed that they are going to begin putting on
skyscrapers as windows. It won't totally power the building, but it will
offset its power consumption, and maybe even sell energy back on the
weekends.
|
keesan
|
|
response 29 of 34:
|
Mar 5 14:07 UTC 2006 |
You can even get some solar gain on the north side of buildings. Vertical
solar panels work best in the winter, and buildings with air conditioning need
more electricity in the summer. There are also direct solar-powered air
conditioners that can go on the rooftop and operate with sun's heat instead
of electricity or gas for heating up the freon in them.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 30 of 34:
|
Mar 5 14:31 UTC 2006 |
An air conditioner doesn't head up freon; it compresses it, runs it
through a heat sink outside, and then allows it to expand in a heat
exchanger inside the house. Its essentially a heat pump, pumping heat
out of the house.
A solar-powered air conditioner would probably use just solar power to
charge a battery which is then used to run the capacitor. Its a mighty
fine idea because the compressor is running all of the time. So the
cummulative charge from the solar panels is enough energy to run the
compressor for 4 or 5 minutes.
Solar power is going to be very important to the energy needs of certain
geographical areas. More areas will benefit as the technology improves.
|
keesan
|
|
response 31 of 34:
|
Mar 5 19:41 UTC 2006 |
Refrigerators and air conditioners use some heat source, I forget how. There
are gas refrigerators and AC (propane).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 34:
|
Mar 5 21:15 UTC 2006 |
Electric refrigerators and airconditioners use similar but not identical
systems, but do not contain a heat source. Gas refrigerators and A/C use heat
to distill ammonia from water. There is a description at
http://www.answers.com/topic/gas-absorption-refrigerator.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 34:
|
Mar 5 22:14 UTC 2006 |
re #22
Thats pretty cool. I don't imagine it would work so well in Seattle, though.
My employer is building a "green" building to move us into in 2007.
Here's some tours of green developments
http://www.builtgreen.net/studies/1021.html
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 34:
|
Mar 7 23:26 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:0: Interesting theory, but has it been peer-reviewed?
Re resp:33: Seattle gets plenty of sun, but it's all during the summer,
which is also when electrical demand is lowest. Solar makes a lot more
sense for somewhere like L.A., where the more the sun shines the more
everyone cranks up their A/C.
There are simpler things that can help, too. I remember seeing a
rather astounding figure for the amount of money that could be saved in
electrical consumption if everyone in L.A. switched from black roofs to
white. Not only would the inside of the buildings remain cooler, the
air in the city center would actually be cooler as well because of more
heat being reflected away instead of absorbed.
|