Show Posts
1
Pixel Art / Re: Lectro Mockup Madness (Last update; Sept 17)
« on: September 18, 2007, 01:47:48 am »
Hello, I'd just like to introduce myself as the guy doing the story.
To answer your question Arachne, an upscaled geothermal plant is indeed more plausible than most of the more mainstream alternative energy sources currently being pushed forward by environmentalists today. Allow me to explain by tackling each one:
Solar Power:
Solar panels are unreliable, and fragile, also consider that only a tiny fraction of the sun's energy hits earth, and only a tiny amount of that surface area can be covered with solar panels at any one time. considering that one thousandth of the earth's surface is already the size of ireland, factor in the fact that solar panels only work at 30% efficiency and and that they don't generate energy at night, that's an area the size of france. Considering that we're talking about CURRENT energy consumption, not counting developing countries with OMGWTFBBQHUEG populations and potential industrial capacity like India and China, that's an unacceptably large amount of land area if you also add the fact that even more panels would have to be built to replace ones which are wrecked i nstorms, tornadoes, wars etc...
Wind Power:
Little known, but true: Wind turbines only work at about 25% of their rated capacity under IDEAL conditions. Add to that the fact that wind farms aren't working at ALL most of the time (when there's no wind, or the wind is powerful enough to damage the turbine), you get a very inefficient source of energy. In fact, there are sources out there saying that the energy produced by a single wind turbine in it's total life span is LESS than the energy required to construct it, and that's not including the fact that a good portion of the turbine's parts are made of petroleum products anyways.
Nuclear Fission:
Ah yes, good ol' Fission, bane of Homer Simpson and Greenpeace alike. Nuclear is actually the most plausible source of alternative energy availiable today. Of course, there are only three things you have to mention to the average person to turn them anti-nuclear for life: Toxic Waste, Dangerous Radiation and Chernobyl.
Nuclear Fusion:
Man-made nuclear fusion, it don't exist yet. and frankly, I don't thin kthis one will become viable (read: profitable) for a long time yet...
I hope that answered all your questions there. If it didn't feel free to send more my way. As for me, I have to finish writing this outline...
To answer your question Arachne, an upscaled geothermal plant is indeed more plausible than most of the more mainstream alternative energy sources currently being pushed forward by environmentalists today. Allow me to explain by tackling each one:
Solar Power:
Solar panels are unreliable, and fragile, also consider that only a tiny fraction of the sun's energy hits earth, and only a tiny amount of that surface area can be covered with solar panels at any one time. considering that one thousandth of the earth's surface is already the size of ireland, factor in the fact that solar panels only work at 30% efficiency and and that they don't generate energy at night, that's an area the size of france. Considering that we're talking about CURRENT energy consumption, not counting developing countries with OMGWTFBBQHUEG populations and potential industrial capacity like India and China, that's an unacceptably large amount of land area if you also add the fact that even more panels would have to be built to replace ones which are wrecked i nstorms, tornadoes, wars etc...
Wind Power:
Little known, but true: Wind turbines only work at about 25% of their rated capacity under IDEAL conditions. Add to that the fact that wind farms aren't working at ALL most of the time (when there's no wind, or the wind is powerful enough to damage the turbine), you get a very inefficient source of energy. In fact, there are sources out there saying that the energy produced by a single wind turbine in it's total life span is LESS than the energy required to construct it, and that's not including the fact that a good portion of the turbine's parts are made of petroleum products anyways.
Nuclear Fission:
Ah yes, good ol' Fission, bane of Homer Simpson and Greenpeace alike. Nuclear is actually the most plausible source of alternative energy availiable today. Of course, there are only three things you have to mention to the average person to turn them anti-nuclear for life: Toxic Waste, Dangerous Radiation and Chernobyl.
Nuclear Fusion:
Man-made nuclear fusion, it don't exist yet. and frankly, I don't thin kthis one will become viable (read: profitable) for a long time yet...
I hope that answered all your questions there. If it didn't feel free to send more my way. As for me, I have to finish writing this outline...