Alternative energy sources... which are best to support?, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 11:39 AM by Reaper234
The best we have right now is nuclear, and i'll show you why

in one simple word, thorium

this metal as a nuclear fuel literally has it all

i refer you to this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this really is the future, and the fact that so little people know about it even and that it isn't discussed amazes me beyond belief

if it weren't for the fact that so many are already heavily invested in uranium and that all that matters is money this would already be being implemented no doubt, shame

even so, spread the word

Reaper


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 11:13 PM by zappafan1
reply to post by Reaper234

You are quite correct. Helium 3 would be my second choice.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 11:15 PM by zappafan1
reply to post by LazarusTheLong
The idea that you still believe in global warming leads me to take the rest of your post with a grain of salt.



reply posted on 2-10-2011 @ 11:51 AM by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by LazarusTheLong


I do not see steam power on your list.
The world still runs on steam.
The force of steam runs nuclear powered war ship and Con Edison and
electric plant generators if not gone to motors but in Manhattan it seems
apparent they steam heat some large building with the excess or separate
steam sources. The force of steam showed itself at this mornings coffee
as the steam came out after the water finished up and popped the cover.
Ah the force of steam.

The only alternative and very close to free are some of Tesla's methods.
Heating is one where the metal radiators would be heated by high frequency
in a known heating effect. Tesla force from electricity is well known in the
induction motor and is unknown in his well over unity applications.
Free energy or over unity is a fact but not an official alternate energy source.


reply posted on 5-10-2011 @ 12:53 AM by neogeo
The largest power plant in the world by capacity (power) is the Three Gorges Dam in China. It has a total capacity of 20,000 MW or 20 GW. Four (4) of the five (5) largest power plants in the world are hydroelectric power plants. The sole non-hydroelectric power plant in the top five (5) is a nuclear power plant.

Here is a link on wikipedia that shows the largest power plants in the world based on power capacity:

en.wikipedia.org...

Name - Country - Capacity - Type

1 Three Gorges Dam - China - 20,300 MW - Hydroelectricity
2 Itaipu Dam - Brazil & Paraguay - 14,000 MW - Hydroelectricity
3 Guri Dam - Venezuela - 10,235 MW - Hydroelectricity
4 Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant - Japan - 8,212 MW - Nuclear
5 Tucurui Dam - Brazil - 8,125 MW - Hydroelectricity
6 Bruce Nuclear Generating Station - Canada - 7,276 MW - Nuclear
7 Grand Coulee Dam - United States - 6,809 MW - Hydroelectricity
8 Longtan Dam - China 6,426 MW - Hydroelectricity
9 Uljin Nuclear Power Plant - South Korea - 6,157 MW - Nuclear
10= Krasnoyarsk Dam - Russia - 6,000 MW - Hydroelectricity
10= Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant - Ukraine - 6,000 MW - Nuclear


As you can see 7 of the 10 largest (actually 11 due to a tie at # 10) are hydroelectric. The rest are nuclear. There is a limit - based on topographic relief and available water flow - to the number of hydroelectric power plants which can be built which supply a significant amount of power (capacity). A further look at the wikipedia link reveals that renewable resources like wind and solar have very small power capacities when compared to coal and nuclear.

Type - Capacity (world's largest)

Hydroelectric - 20,300 MW
Nuclear - 8,212 MW
Coal - 5,780 MW
Natural Gas - 5,040 MW
Wind - 782 MW
Geothermal - 233 MW
Solar - 150 MW

The other day, the Houston Chronicle reported that Arizona had announced construction on a 250 MW Solar power plant. Anyone still believe that renewable resources are the wave of the future?

Only coal and nuclear power plants are capable of substituting the energy demands of oil. There is an aversion to coal because it is "dirty" and there is an aversion to nuclear because it is "dangerous". However, that does not change the fact that these two sources of energy supply very large and very abundant sources of energy.

The following data on Texas' power capacity was taken from the Energy Information Agency's website - www.eia.gov...

Let's look at it this way. My home state of Texas (a large industrious state) in 2009 produced about 400,000,000 MWh of electricty. The net summer capacity (power) for that year was about 103,000 MW. Here is what is would take to meet the summer capacity in Texas.

It would take this number of the world's largest type of power plant to equal Texas' summer power capacity:

Hydroelectric - 5
Nuclear - 12
Coal - 18
Gas - 20
Wind - 132
Geo Thermal - 442
Solar - 686

Get the picture?


reply posted on 22-11-2011 @ 08:31 AM by Off_The_Street
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

I do not see steam power on your list. The world still runs on steam. The force of steam runs nuclear powered war ship and Con Edison and electric plant generators if not gone to motors but in Manhattan it seems apparent they steam heat some large building with the excess or separate steam sources. The force of steam showed itself at this mornings coffee as the steam came out after the water finished up and popped the cover. Ah the force of steam.


Nothing wrong with steam; it figuring out how you create it, i.e., what method you use to generate heat, that is the issue. You can use coal, oil, fissioning uranium isotopes, or a solar trough to turn water into steam which then can do a whole bunch of work for you, but which of those heating methods is the most cost-effective one? That’s the question!

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The only alternative and very close to free are some of Tesla's methods. Heating is one where the metal radiators would be heated by high frequency in a known heating effect. Tesla force from electricity is well known in the induction motor…


True, but again, how to generate the electricity in the first place – quite often by steam. But there’s the same problem all over again.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
… and is unknown in his well over unity applications. Free energy or over unity is a fact but not an official alternate energy source.


You may consider it a “fact”, but no one else does. If there actually were a “free energy” model that has been demonstrated and shown to work, then people might take it a bit more seriously. Admittedly, there have been lots and lots of people talking about it, but when comes time to actually build one or demonstrate it, it invariably turns out to be a hoax -- or it simply doesn’t work.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I might have mentioned this before and people thought is was a bad idea. Tesla advocated the burning of atmospheric Nitrogen and some felt that the gases would be worse than carbon gases.


Now do you burn nitrogen? It doesn’t sustain combustion.


reply posted on 8-12-2011 @ 01:06 PM by Off_The_Street
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne Tesla said that in his high voltage and high frequency the nitrogen burns as easily as carbon does in air.


If that were the case, it would seem to me that, since about 67 percent of the Earth's atmosphere is free nitrogen, it should've all burned away the first time Tesla ever did generate his "high voltage and high frequency". Fortunately, it didn't happen, for if it had, the atmospheric nitrogen would have ignited, destroying the Earth's nitrogen cycle, and with it, life as we know it.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne I imagine it is something like his ozone maker that is still built and marketed from time to time.


Except that high voltage can (if you use the corona discharge approach) break down atmospheric oxygen (O2) into Ozone (O3), but it doesn't do anything to nitrogen (N2) at all.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne His statements are included in his many writings and on the promotion of his tower on long island.


But those statements seem to not be borne out by actual results, and we all know what happened to his tower.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne If you think UFOs are bright you might consider that nitrogen might be burning in the presence of the voltage being generated to propel the ship.


If that were the case, we'd have to accept three different assertions: (1) that UFOs are some sort of propelled craft; (2) that they're propelled by electricity; and (3) that that particular "brand" of electricity can burn N2 without destroying the Earth's atmosphere. I don't buy those assertions; I see no evidence for any of them.

Look, I don't want to pee in your cornflakes here. I think that Nikola Tesla was a brilliant engineer and inventor, and I concede he got screwed over by Edison just like Philo Farnsworth got screwed over by RCA.

But Tesla was, especially in his later years a bit ... eccentric, and he couldn't give up his belief that his stuff would work if only he got a few more million bucks to finance his experiments. The people with the bucks, though, couldn't see any future in his inventions; not wanting to throw good money after bad, the stopped supporting him, and Tesla died without ever manageing to show that some of his more arcane ideas worked.

In the seventy years since his death countless peopple have convinced themselves and each other that some of his later stuff actually would work, and countless people have tried to make his later ideas into real life whizz-bangs, and they all failed. Tesla was a tremendous pioneer whose brilliant intellect, fragile ego, and harsh treatment at the hands of others eventually drove him around the bend...

... and I think we ought to let the man rest in peace.


reply posted on 8-12-2011 @ 02:49 PM by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Off_The_Street


That spouts as anti Tesla cartel agents 99% messages.
Burning Nitrogen works as well as all the rest of Tesla's free energy devices and
the are working today by the hundreds.

If you can't figure that out by now there is not much hope for Tesla science of
the 1% getting to the 99%.

Just to let the 99% know, anytime.


reply posted on 8-12-2011 @ 03:06 PM by Off_The_Street
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Off_The_Street

Burning Nitrogen works as well as all the rest of Tesla's free energy devices


That is one thing we can agree on.


reply posted on 9-12-2011 @ 04:00 PM by ANNED
thorium and trash to fuel using the Fischer–Tropsch process

First none of the Alternative energy sources will supply enough peaking power for the grid.

So we are going to have to use nuclear and thorium is the safest by far

the Fischer–Tropsch process can make fuel from any organic material and trash is a major problem in the US from contaminating water to emitting methane.
en.wikipedia.org...

Fischer–Tropsch process can make any fuel from hydrogen to biodiesel

this includes ethanol. butanol. synthetic gasoline synthetic or biodiesel

Ethanol. Butanol. can be used in fuel cells and would not need special filling station like hydrogen this would cut the cost of converting to fuel cells greatly.
Plus butanol can be used in gas engines as a direct replacement for gasoline and out of the same pump used in fuel cells.
en.wikipedia.org...

Butanol is far safer to transport, can be transported in standard tank trucks and does not need special equipment to use.
No cryogenic liquid tanker trucks and massive bombs on the highway.

Hydrogen as fuel is just TOO expensive to ever happen on a large scale when Butanol will do the same thing better and can be made from trash

en.wikipedia.org...
www.consumerenergyreport.com...


reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 12:33 PM by Maslo
The problem of alternative energy such as wind and solar is very variable output dependant on weather. Unless you have high amounts of storage to store power in surplus times and release it back to the grid when the sun is not shining and wind is not blowing, the grid would not be stable. The real problem with our energy supply is storage.

Dont get mistaken by nameplate capacity of solar/wind farms. It refers to maximum output requiring ideal conditions, and with such intermittent energy sources, it is often much lower.

Typical capacity factors:
Wind farms 20-40%.[14][15]
Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%.[14]
Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%. [16][17]
Hydroelectricity, worldwide average 44%[citation needed], range of 10% - 99% depending on design (small plant in big river will always have enough water to operate and vice versa), water availability (with or without regulation via storage dam, where a storage dam is designed to store at least enough water to operate the plant at full capacity for around half a year to allow full regulation of the annual flow of the river).
Nuclear energy 70% (1971-2009 average of USA's plants). [18]
Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants). [19]

The only alternative energy source which does not suffer from this is solar thermal (CSP) with molten salt thermal storage. Still, it takes lots of land to capture enough sunlight for any solar power.

I will go with LFTR when it comes to energy.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

OMG!!! Is this for real??
  Relationships: 15 hours ago, 78 replies
RONY 2012
  US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 62 replies
Why do UFO's need lights?
  Aliens and UFOs: 17 hours ago, 48 replies
We are (nearly) all Believers!!!
  Aliens and UFOs: 15 hours ago, 35 replies