OT: How Amazing

[Randallw]

Another technology I keep my eyes out for are Solar Chimneys. Basically you have hot air from green houses rising up the chimney turning turbines. All you need are plenty of space to build Kilometer tall buildings, and 16 hours of sunlight a day, which here in Australia we have nothing but. They've built small prototypes and Last I heard our parliament had allowed it, but I'm not sure what progress has been made since.

Edit: oh, and a year or two ago I read of Mechs being developed to use in construction.

[ March 25, 2004, 07:23: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

*sigh* a few solar power satalites are all a country needs...

[ March 25, 2004, 07:59: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
*sigh* a few solar power satalites are all a country needs...

At present, in theory, satelites could be constructed that would capture enough energy to power things sure - but there are some catches:
1) Size: There isn't too terribly much difference in the wattage the sun delivers to a square foot on Earth as it does to a square foot in space, ignoring for the moment the day/night cycle and weather - any such satellite would need to be absolutely enourmous, which causes some difficulties in getting it up there.
2) Transmission and Transmission Safety: Once you have the satellite up there, collecting energy, you have to get all that energy back down where you want to use it. Sure, you could maser it down or something, but what then happens when a solar storm causes the satellite to wander slightly off course? For a communications or weather satellite, a small change in facing doesn't much matter, as there isn't enough energy in the transmissions to mean anything; it can be corrected with manuvering jets or gyroscopes at a later time, with the only drawback being the use of fuel (for jets only) and the downtime. For a power sat, with the distances involved, an extremely minor change in facing could very well cause all that energy to destroy a city, as it turns into heat and causes very bad fires at an unprepared site rather than being properly converted at a prepared site (a large change in facing wouldn't be as bad, as the distance involved means it is more likely to miss Earth entierly). This is complicated by several factors: the Earth is moving, the satelite is orbiting (probably spinning, too), the moon tugs on things, et cetera.
3) Expense (part of 1, in many ways): For the moment, it is ludicrously expensive to get something into orbit. The expense a solar sat would entail would likely makes other, earth-bound energy production mechanisms such as nuclear power plants positively cheap in comparison, although the majority of that is likely the initial expense rather than the ongoing matenince costs.
4) Transmision loss: Every time you ship energy around - especially when changing the form the energy is in - an amount is lost to a waste form of energy that you can't use (heat, mostly). The most expensive solar panels are around what 20% (?) efficency - which means that only one-fifth of the light that hits them is turned into useful electricity, the rest is lost. Changing that electricity into microwaves for transmission intruduces another ineffeciency, as does capturing the microwaves on the ground and converting them back into electricity. By the time the energy has finally reached the ground, we'll probably be lucky to manage 1% overall capture. That can be made up for in size, of course, but then you get back to 1 and 3.
5) Unknown effects: There really isn't any way of knowing beforehand what the effect of pouring that much energy through the air in a concentrated beam will do to such things as the weather, both long term and short, even assuming you can get past 2.

It is very likely all of those can, given time and research, be overcome. For now, however, ground-based energy production is more feasable ... but that will likely not stay true forever.

[Randallw]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
*sigh* a few solar power satalites are all a country needs...

can you please explain the significance of the sigh. Without jumping to conclusions I would like to know what it means.

[gregebowman]

I would like to see more sight and hearing technology being developed myself. I'm 41, and not getting any younger. When I was a child, I had a surgical procedure to correct a "lazy eye" in my left eye. I think it's back. I find it very hard to focus on the same spot when I'm reading. And when I'm not doing computers or vegging in front of the tv, I read a lot. It gets frustrating at times. Also, about 5 years ago I developed a constant buzzing in my right ear. No matter how many times I see the doctor about it and I get a temporary reprieve, it comes back. It does make listening on the telephone kind of hard, as that's one of my functions at work, and being right-handed, I usually try to listen with my right ear. I'd probably go to the doctor more often, but they always want to talk about possibilites of high-blood pressure or other such stuff, as I'm a few pounds overweight. And Last year when I got my eyes checked for new glasses, the optometrist didn't even mention anything about the lazy eye, even though it was apparent to me, and I thought to her, that I was having trouble focusing. So yeah, I'd be interested in more advances in the above techonogies.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Randallw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
*sigh* a few solar power satalites are all a country needs...

can you please explain the significance of the sigh. Without jumping to conclusions I would like to know what it means.

---

Yeah...it's unlikely. Costs to much, to many concerns. See Jack's post for a summery.

[dogscoff]

Talking about alternative energy... I was driving to my brother's the other day, which involves spending half an hour on scenic country roads going through quaint villages. Every now and again on roads like this you'll see signs campaigning for local causes- "We need a bypass" or "No open prison in our village".

However the other day I saw signs saying something like "No to giant wind turbines on our hills". I felt like putting up a sign beneath it sayin "Yes to oil-burning power station."

What the hell is wrong with these people? What's wrong with wind turbines? I think they are beautiful to look at, and even if I didn't I would rather support a clean, renewable energy source than continue with what we have.