Mining Engineering. (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

No I dont think its for hippies, im also very much an environmentalist relative to the general public. The truth is, solar/wind , as it is now as a form of mass energy, is a pipe dream. Perhaps in the future it can be viable. Ironically that kind of response(the kind that doesnt address the points raised) gives me the impression that you are a hippy. Mind you I made that post before I noticed your post just before, which does(finally) reveal some technical acheivements.
I find your comparison, and '$1 per watt' figure misleading. The source of that statistic says thats just for the panels, you completely disregarded the expense required to turn such panels into a mass energy producer - labour, materials, huge tracts of land, storage production(no viable form of storage is yet developed), inverters, etc. Factor in this, panels are a fraction of the total capital price of solar.
Admittably Im outdated when it comes to solar tech as the industry is moving at a very fast pace, my claim that it need to be hundreds-thousands of times more efficient was based on many (perhaps very outdated)statements that panels covering some crazy area (some say the whole of greenland) will be needed to power the world.
Given that the capacity of the US is around 800000MW, we still need a massive 6000-7000+ square kilometres of your future 'third generation' solar panels to power the US(assuming average 500W/sq metre of sun energy for 12 hours a day, 50% efficiency of third generation, and that it only produces energy half a day). Not to mention some gigantic storage farm. Thats the simplest way of looking at it.

The 500w figure is a middle estimate/assumption: http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp?artid=375&type=6&root=2&parent=2&cat=21

1) It looks like, again, you've not read a bunch of my posts, and assumed that I think photovoltaic cells specifically, rather than other solar energy producers will become the main source of energy.
2) You admit that all your information is very outdated, yet you continue to argue?

 

[Curry]

Jesus, why is everyone going on about energy and relating that to mining? Are you all unaware that all the building materials and metals and ores we use come from mines as well? Do you think we miners just mine coal (though it is in my opinion the most interesting to mine - especially underground coal) and all the metals magically fall out of the sky directly into processing plants? And diamonds and opals grow on trees..

Mining Engineering at UNSW - 1st year.

UAI for all engineering courses in UNSW next year will be 85 min.

Later.

 

[Slidey]

Uh, actually, we've gone off topic and are discussing energy instead of mining.

 

[tech.knockout]

1) It looks like, again, you've not read a bunch of my posts, and assumed that I think photovoltaic cells specifically, rather than other solar energy producers will become the main source of energy.

Please tell me the solar technology that isnt photovoltaic cells, that will somehow become the main source of energy, and which you somehow discussed in a 'bunch of posts'. Solar towers is the only other competitive solar option I know of, but you elaborated very little about solar towers, if at all. You talked about beaming sunlight from space, but that was one sentence, not a 'bunch of posts'. Not enough info to argue extensively about, nor is there as much enthusiasm/investment/promise in such technology as photovoltaics.

2) You admit that all your information is very outdated, yet you continue to argue?

Its quite obvious I was using your information to argue in my previous post, and that im quite happy for you to reveal to me recent technical improvements in solar. But how about you start addressing my points instead of making up some excuse, or acting like a sore hippy who thinks anyone who disagrees with you likes to destroy the world.

 

[Slidey]

Well, I didn't think you blind, you see.

The photolytic liberation of hydrogen is being research around the globe, with UNSW at the forefront of said research. That's the technology I speak of. No doubt you'll try to find some way to 'show' that this, too is a pipe dream. As, I suppose, things like nanotechnology and hydrogen economies are also pipe dreams to you, and, I imagine, just as information technology was a considered a pipe dream about 50 years ago, along with uses for LASERs. What wouldn't you consider a pipe dream?

But I tire of this discussion, anyway. I'd much prefer to be messing around with the Game of Life!

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

 

[withoutaface]

Yes IT was a pipe dream, but so were things such as colonies on the moon, setting foot on mars and laser death cannons on the battlefield. For every pipe dream that does come true there are at least ten that don't, and justifying something based on such logic is dubious at best.

 

[tech.knockout]

Well, I didn't think you blind, you see.

The photolytic liberation of hydrogen is being research around the globe, with UNSW at the forefront of said research. That's the technology I speak of. No doubt you'll try to find some way to 'show' that this, too is a pipe dream. As, I suppose, things like nanotechnology and hydrogen economies are also pipe dreams to you, and, I imagine, just as information technology was a considered a pipe dream about 50 years ago, along with uses for LASERs. What wouldn't you consider a pipe dream?

Fair enough I thought photolysis was just energy storage. But instead of properly addressing the points raised, the logic you use to justify your stance is pathetic. I wasted my time with a hippy.

 

[Curry]

We had a presentaion by Centennial Coal today. The guy said that coal was likely to be used well into our grandchildrens time, with nuclear being the only logical alternativve at this time.

 

[Meldrum]

It's a bit difficult to see how nuclear is going to effectively replace coal.

Carbon-based fuels are easy to transport, readily availiable and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is the opposite.

 

[NonExistant]

It's a bit difficult to see how nuclear is going to effectively replace coal.

Carbon-based fuels are easy to transport, readily availiable and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is the opposite.

Ummm, Nuclear is all that, and more efficient.

 

[Meldrum]

Got a source?

 

[NonExistant]

Got a source?

Do you?

This was in a uni lecture.

 

[withoutaface]

It's a bit difficult to see how nuclear is going to effectively replace coal.

Carbon-based fuels are easy to transport, readily availiable and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is the opposite.

You're saying that a couple of trainloads of coal is going to be easier to transport than one truckload of uranium?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would agree with him there... because it's not like you can just throw some uranium on a truck and take it for a drive.

 

[withoutaface]

I would agree with him there... because it's not like you can just throw some uranium on a truck and take it for a drive.

If you have a properly sealed cargo area it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Meldrum]

What I mean is that you can get covered in oil and not, you know, grow...a third head.

 

[Meldrum]

And now I think of it: NE, it's common sense to see that:

Carbon-based fuels are easy to transport, readily availiable and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is the opposite.

 

[NonExistant]

Now you're just saying it's common sense because you can't find a source, I will point out and break down where you are wrong in every way.

It's a bit difficult to see how nuclear is going to effectively replace coal.

Carbon-based fuels are easy to transport, readily availiable and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is the opposite.

Easy to transport? How are they easy? Aside from being highly flamable like oil, and coal needing VAST volumes of space, uranium requires much less quantities therefore is easier to transport. Or if you transport it as uranium ore, still needs less than coal and isn't particually dangerous.

Readily Availible: Yes they are, of course the point can be raised "for how long", but that's irrelevant because Uranium is just as readily availible, hence why places like Japan and other countries have Nuclear power stations.

Cheap to mine? In your dreams, the yeild on coal mining is traditionally low, and if you factor in the amount required to mine vs energy output, nuclear is by far the winner.

Perhaps research, or better yet think before you speak next time.

 

[Slidey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_accidents

 

[Meldrum]

Easy to transport? How are they easy? Aside from being highly flamable like oil, and coal needing VAST volumes of space, uranium requires much less quantities therefore is easier to transport. Or if you transport it as uranium ore, still needs less than coal and isn't particually dangerous.

Readily Availible: Yes they are, of course the point can be raised "for how long", but that's irrelevant because Uranium is just as readily availible, hence why places like Japan and other countries have Nuclear power stations.

Cheap to mine? In your dreams, the yeild on coal mining is traditionally low, and if you factor in the amount required to mine vs energy output, nuclear is by far the winner.

Perhaps research, or better yet think before you speak next time.

Jeez...you go to Hillsong, don't you?