Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS General Discussion » Renewable Energy
You need to register or login to post a reply.
Renewable Energy
|
Daniel De Swarte RJ: Jim Bob Tomothy Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 17, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Is this something that has been considered. I for one would like to see it being a part of the game.Would be more expensive than regular power plants to set up, especially since rate of production is much lower for the same area, but production would be cheaper. Thoughts? |
|
Roald Adriaansen RJ: Wuvil CO: Wuvil Post Rating: -2 + / - Total Posts: 146 Karma: 281 Joined: Feb 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Give it a couple of years more and solar is bound to have become cheaper than gas/oil. Hydro is already cheaper, but limited to locations on earth. Nuclear should also be considered, Thorium could for instance power the world for the next several thousand years and have none of the drawbacks uranium has. The problem in this game is if you have a best power source, why wouldn't everyone use that and only that ignoring the others? Of course when scott adds weather and climate simulation etc things could get interesting. |
|
M G RJ: Black Dow Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 3 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 I like it, but I am not sure how you could create demand for it. On the other hand it could open up the option to create different "grades" of product - e.g. "organic" pigs which can only be produced with renewable energy and could theoretically demand higher prices.
|
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: -1 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 18, 2012) Ha. This could be fun, yeah. Solar is pretty reliable across regions (there's at least a reasonable daily dose of solar radiation every day, etc), wind energy is more finicky about placement, hydro obviously depends on massive investment at local waterway points but would hurt (future) fish markets, nuclear is reliable except for the occasional horrific meltdown.If my fond dream of distinct regional markets ends up manifesting, you could easily have per-region coefficients for each of these things (and other things, like specific environmental regulations or lack thereof) to make different energy alternatives more or less viable in a given region. No hydro in Desertzona; wind power extra efficient in Cape Econosia; nuclear prohibited in once-bitten twice-shy Chernobraska. |
|
Matthew Suozzo RJ: Buckaroo Bonzai Post Rating: -1 + / - Total Posts: 40 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Come on guys. Fusion is where it's at. In the words of Sunny D: "unleash the power of the sun." Personally, I don't see solar becoming viable in near future. It's a sexy research topic but stratospherically expensive, even on a large scale. Solar, too, is highly dependent on location, season, and weather conditions.Thorium power should be a bigger area of research but with the label of 'nuclear' comes decades of stigma and criticism by the ignoramus. Even today's Uranium/Plutonium nuclear technology is incredibly safe (Ok, save once-in-a-century natural disasters). Geothermal is also a serious power generation method but this needs to be brought on point. I think complicating the type of energy is not useful at this stage of the game though I do like the idea of adding modifiers like Organic in the future. I think factories should require electricity to run but not necessarily have that cost built into the price of each product. It only makes sense for certain items to require more electricity but I think the lower end of the spectrum could be collapsed to a fixed cost. This could mean that larger factories are more efficient because of, dare I say, an economy of scale. (I probably deserve to lose karma for that) |
|
Tom Denton RJ: kaibutsu Post Rating: -1 + / - Total Posts: 24 Karma: 53 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Actually, solar cell prices are going through something like an inverse Moore's law lately; they've dropped a bit less than 50% in the last year, while their power collecting ability has been steadily improving as well. Thorium's major disadvantage is that there aren't military subsidies for it, as there were for traditional uranium and plutonium plants. Throughout the developed world, states covered massive amounts of financial burden for these projects in exchange for nuclear weapon fuel. Thorium doesn't produce the fuel, and so has a massive initial capital problem to overcome. (Also, the stigma on current nuclear power generation is entirely justified. As we saw last year in Japan, those 'once-in-a-century' events are pretty damned terrifying. The 'once-in-a-century' estimates are a lot like the perfect-use scenarios for your favorite method of birth control. All well and good, but don't necessarily reflect what occurs once actual people, and especially politicians, are involved. It comes down to a question of probability of failure in a given time-frame multiplied by the damage potential. The probabilities really aren't knowable, and the worst-case scenarios are well-known. I don't think it's really unreasonable that people decide they aren't willing to accept the risk.) |
|
Mister Death RJ: McFlono McFloninoo Post Rating: -3 + / - Total Posts: 266 Karma: 300 Joined: Feb 6, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 >Solar ... is highly dependent on location, season, and weather conditions.Ah, that explains why the leader in solar power development and deployment is sunny, low-latitude Germany then. Gotcha. |
|
Matthew Suozzo RJ: Buckaroo Bonzai Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 40 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 To develop and deploy means nothing of yield. While PVs are increasingly effective at generating power under cloud cover, the true capabilities of the technology are hindered by Germany's climate. Just because there are massive government subsidies doesn't mean there is any real progress in the quality of the technology. Fun Fact: Solar subsidies in Germany account for over 5% ($18 billion) of total governmental spending.While I realize the technology is improving, this doesn't mean solar will solve the world's energy crisis. No matter how much people want it to, solar cannot occupy this role and will continue to be a green obsession of developed nations. Re Mr. Denton: You cannot blame the failure of the nuclear facility at Fukushima Daiichi purely on the safety of the technology. There were massive issues with the nuclear regulatory system and with the operation of the plant in this case. That being said, Thorium holds major promise and I'm saying that it SHOULD be funded. I am well aware that it is not a government-backed field of research. |
|
Mister Death RJ: McFlono McFloninoo Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 266 Karma: 300 Joined: Feb 6, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 18, 2012) Not arguing with that, just pointing out that you missed an important factor (-:Also, thorium research is actually being heavily funded and actively pursued - in India. Check out the Wikipedia article on "India's three stage nuclear power programme". The problem there isn't a lack of thorium, it's that (a) thorium isn't itself fissile, and (b) it's taking them a very long time to get enough fissile fuel to breed the thorium into U-233. If their current programme continues, in 50 years or so their power grid will be largely thorium-fuelled. |
|
Roald Adriaansen RJ: Wuvil CO: Wuvil Post Rating: 3 + / - Total Posts: 146 Karma: 281 Joined: Feb 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Nuclear tech IS safe *IF* we stopped using the outdated designs from the WW2 and cold war and upgraded to today's knowledge and technology (gen 1/2 is currently used, we have gen 4 reactor tech for a while already now) and used Thorium instead of uranium. (also doesn't help many are placed in common natural disaster areas). Thorium is VERY safe and very easy to control in the case of emergencies. Thorium is also abundant in large parts of the world and thus would be very cheap compared to the extremely rare uranium that we currently use (the ONLY reason this was chosen was because USA wanted it for weapons, energy was just a side product for them). |
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Dear sweet Jeezy Creezy can we please not get into an extended debate about nuclear energy on the EoS message board.
|
|
Matthew Suozzo RJ: Buckaroo Bonzai Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 40 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 I agree with everything Wuvil said. That is all.
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan RJ: CEO Nwabudike Morgan CO: CEO Nwabudike Morgan Post Rating: 4 + / - Total Posts: 108 Karma: 344 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 18, 2012 Ah, that explains why the leader in solar power development and deployment is sunny, low-latitude Germany then. Gotcha. The same solar infrastructure would collect perhaps twice as much energy near the equator. Here is a chart of solar irradiance by latitude that I found in a quick search: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6541E/X654108.gif As you can see, latitude and season have a dramatic impact, even before climate is considered. Even the best photovoltaics can only convert about half of the energy shown in that chart to electricity, so a very large area is required to generate an appreciable amount of electricity. |
You need to register or login to post a reply.