Posted by leeboy13
Right, just a thought (off top of my head)....
Couldnt we send loads of solar panel equiptment up into space (closer to teh sun) and somehow send the energy back to us on earth? (lol my mind may be going crazy today), but its just an idea...... Is there anyway of sending it without the need of cables - if this is bliatently obviously wrong soemone please point it out otherwise i wont stop thinking about it lol
any thoughts or views... maybe we could use this thread as an idea for alternative energy sources.... (will change teh name if anyone thinks it a good idea
[ This Message was edited by: leeboy13 on 2006-05-26 14:10 ]
Posted by axxxr
Its all very possible and apparantly NASA are working on it....The idea is to send Solar Panels into space and the energy is sent back via Micro Waves ..so no cables needed....see this article HERE
Posted by BobaFett
i am more for develope and use nuclear energy, where and how do u wanna store the solar energy?
Posted by leeboy13
axxxr, you never disserpoint do you thats exactly what i was thinking about (ok, not identically but teh same sort of idea)....... if we can do that then maybe one day there is scope to put all power gathering equiptment on another planet
very neat!
Posted by Luke-the-magic-man
microwaves... hmmm yep problem with that though firstly reciveving them and changing the energy form back into electrical energy, then theres also the thing with the amount of wastage, allot of the energy will go into a useless form such as heat, making the plannet warm up. there is then the problem of the effect on the earth sending down even more microwaves through the atmosphere, id say its a very bad idea myself.
Heres my idea: Fit every house/building in the UK/world with solar pannels and batterys that way we can save our own energy and lower the bills, allong with this we could fit water heating solar pannels so our water is heated on warm days for free.
and whilst were at it we should collect rain water to flush the toilets.... brilliant ideas there
Posted by leeboy13
there are many ways opening avaible to teh uk market today to do such things luke, but noone wants to pay teh initial costs....
an example of thsi is using Geothermal energy to heat a house..... ( the Geothermal energy can be drawn from under the house and heat it for basically free.... but teh intial costs are quite high i think.... around teh £10000 mark if my memory serves me correct.... (but in teh long run - youd save forture and help teh enviroment
Posted by Jim
ITER is the future!
Posted by leeboy13
Jim thats quite interesting..... why do you think its teh way forward? Isnt there a high risk of problems if its not exactly right?
Posted by BobaFett
@jim u are my man
so lets hope it will turn around this way, instead of wind, water, sun etc energy solutions.
Posted by leeboy13
why instead of tho mate.... surely there aint anything wrong with teh ones you just mentioned....... they are freely avalible to us, on our door step in some cases....
Surely and ideal world world probably be made up of these sources? food for thought...
Posted by Jim
| Quote: |
|
Here is why (copy and paste from the site):
First of all, fusion is an almost limitless fuel supply. The basic fuels are distributed widely around the globe. Deuterium is abundant and can be extracted easily from sea water. Lithium, from which tritium can be produced, is a readily available light metal in the Earth´s crust.
Fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions. Fusion power plants will not generate gases such as carbon dioxide that cause global warming and climate change, nor other gases that have damaging effects on the environment.
Fusion is suitable for the large-scale electricity production required for the increasing energy needs of large cities. A single fusion power station could generate electricity for two million households.
Waste from fusion will not be a long-term burden on future generations. Only metal parts close to the fusion plasma will become radioactive. Any radioactive waste generated will be small in volume and the radioactivity will decay over several decades with the possibility of reuse after about 100 years.
No transport of radioactive materials is required in the day-to-day operation of a fusion power station, as the intermediate fuel tritium is produced and consumed within the power plant.
The fusion reaction is inherently safe. Only about two grams of fuel is present in the plasma vessel, enough for a few seconds of "burn". As fusion is not a chain reaction, the reaction can never run out of hand.
Posted by leeboy13
sounds grand matey.... but whats 'your' views on it... (i aint trying to be funny there mate), just looking for user opinions.... i could very well of just spent the day surfing up all the info, but i figured it could be a good topic of debate and also it may actually get people thinking green
Why are there not many fusion stations around now? are there plans to be....
Posted by Jim
Because it's new technologies, the plasma has to be at 100 million °C. Only now we can achieve that and ITER is a test reactor, meaning that in 2050 we might see the first fusion plants.
No other type of green energy can match that power. Of course fusion is not the solution to our energy problems, everything that consume energy have to get a better output. LED is a great example, allmost all the electric power is transformed into light.
Posted by leeboy13
i see mate..... well its look promising for teh future dont it