Bridges and platforms have already destroyed things if thats the case.

7/27/2011 1:33:46 AM

not so much. moving current around something is not the same as specifically extracting energy from said current/movement

7/27/2011 1:39:12 AM

Actually, you must be mistaking for what tidal power actually is. Bridges and platforms actually extract energy from the tides in order to not be snapped.


they move up and down as the tide comes in and out

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:45 AM. Reason : everything else sitting on the water extracts energy from the tide,, we just dont harness it.]

7/27/2011 1:44:44 AM

remember that solar panel manufacturer where Obama made a big speech, saying they were the technology of the future? well, they closed their doors yesterday, bot only after sucking in millions of dollars from taxpayers.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-shutdown-20110901,0,5045155.story

and that's not the only one falling flat on its face. It's almost as if some people on here have predicted such shit would happen. But hey, we need to come up with solutions, right? nevermind if there's actually a problem

9/1/2011 7:58:23 PM

No one can deny the fact that relying on fossil fuels for energy is a problem.

9/1/2011 8:32:37 PM

^^ There never was and there is still not any guarantee that any type of solar or wind would be cheaper to do than fossil fuels.

Even so, we'd be better off taking the more expensive option. That applies for nuclear too, it's also more expensive and better than what we have now.

9/1/2011 9:06:01 PM

^^^Yes, because fossil fuels have never cost tax payers a dime. We don't fork over millions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies that are already posting record profits. There's no such thing as oil spills or drilling accidents. An entire regions economy wasn't practically wiped out due to an oil drilling accident. There haven't been trillions of tax payer dollars lost and millions of humans killed due to our meddling in a region that would still be a blank spot on the map if not for our reliance on fossil fuels. How dare we spend, in comparison, pocket change in attempting to move away from all of that.

Oh, and saving the planet is hard so we shouldn't even try

Also, $535 million dollars is an untenable expense, but raising $700 billion by bumping the tax rate on billionaires by 3% is "pointless" and a "red herring" in the debt debate. Get the fuck out of here.

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 10:01 PM. Reason : more]

9/1/2011 9:35:33 PM

so, you going to defend that or not? sounds to me like you are suggesting that two wrongs make a right

9/2/2011 4:00:53 PM

Defend what? Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Wait, we already know the answer to that from your stance on the S&P downgrade, you just read the first sentence and move on.

Quote :

"Solyndra of Fremont, Calif., said it had been rocked by stifling global economic conditions and faced heavy competition from Chinese firms that were undercutting it on costs."

Quote :

"Experts said that solar energy was still among the most promising of all of the alternative energy sources, but they added that due diligence was necessary to pick the best companies. Some said a consolidation of the industry was inevitable."

Quote :

""You can't end loan subsidies for renewable energy. That would be a disaster," Slocum said. "In countries like Germany and Japan, which have a much larger footprint in this area, subsidies have been remarkably successful.""

Seems like the only thing O did wrong was bet on the wrong company, but the idea itself was sound. Once again, get the fuck out.

9/2/2011 4:13:55 PM

Yeah, O just picked the wrong company. I guess that's why Spain's green job program has been a runaway success utter failure.

9/2/2011 4:32:17 PM

non sequitur?

9/2/2011 4:38:09 PM

not really. Spain's green jobs failure is basically the same topic. or do you not think that solar panel manufacturers are an example of "green jobs"?

Quote :

"Seems like the only thing O did wrong was bet on the wrong company,"

three times. DOH

9/2/2011 5:10:05 PM

I don't buy the connection between one failed company being representative of an other country's entire green jobs initiative. Each time a BP closes should we throw in the towel for Big Oil?

9/2/2011 6:07:39 PM

^well BP fuel stations aren't actually owned by BP

Quote :

"Thorium lasers could make nuclear cars a reality We'll be honest. The future hasn't quite turned out like we expected. While Saturday-morning cartoons promised us a world in which our fantasy-powered flying bubble cars would conveniently origami themselves into easily-transportable briefcases, reality has been a bit slower to abandon the traditional internal-combustion model. But that may eventually change. Scientists at research-and-development firm Laser Power Systems are working on a new turbine electric generator system powered by a thorium-based laser. If, like us, you spent the majority of chemistry class studiously analyzing the insides of your eyelids, you may not recall that thorium is a mildly radioactive metal with an atomic weight of 90. That's right, kids. We're talking about a nuclear-powered car. Please insert maniacal laugh track. The principle is fairly simple. The thorium would be lased to generate heat, which would then produce steam in a closed-loop system. That steam would then power a generator to produce electricity. Since it only takes a thin sheet of aluminum foil to shield the world from the weak thorium radiation and the element can't be weaponized, it's thought to be perfect for mobile power generation. Scientists say that just eight grams of thorium could be enough to power a vehicle for somewhere around 300,000 miles of driving. If this all sounds a little far-fetched, it may pay to remember that thorium is already on automakers' radar. Cadillac introduced the thorium-powered World Thorium Fuel Concept at the 2009 Chicago Auto Show."

I wonder how feasible this could be in the near future. Should we discuss alternative energy forms (for vehicles) in this thread or another?

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/03/thorium-lasers-could-make-nuclear-cars-a-reality/

[Edited on September 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : okay so apparently there area fair amount of inaccuracies in that article ]

9/6/2011 1:38:25 PM

Quote :

"If, like us, you spent the majority of chemistry class studiously analyzing the insides of your eyelids, you may not recall that thorium is a mildly radioactive metal with an atomic weight of 90."

lol

9/6/2011 5:19:34 PM

something about that makes me uneasy.

9/6/2011 6:26:49 PM

Quote :

"^^^Yes, because fossil fuels have never cost tax payers a dime. We don't fork over millions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies that are already posting record profits. There's no such thing as oil spills or drilling accidents. An entire regions economy wasn't practically wiped out due to an oil drilling accident. There haven't been trillions of tax payer dollars lost and millions of humans killed due to our meddling in a region that would still be a blank spot on the map if not for our reliance on fossil fuels. How dare we spend, in comparison, pocket change in attempting to move away from all of that."

the amount of money spent subsidizing oil per unit of energy returned is almost nothing. they should get rid of the subsidies entirely because they dont have any real impact and wouldnt hurt oil prices much in the long term.

wind and solar, on the other hand, have almost no return on investment. they're shitty techs that we should stop wasting our time with. We can toss them some money here and there if someone actually comes up with something interesting and new, but its mostly a waste of time and resources.

We need to get off oil for a ton of reasons.
Coal is dirty as hell
natural gas would be ok if we can do it without the problems of fracking.
hydro is great but very reglional.

pretty much its go nuke or go home.

9/6/2011 8:14:25 PM

Quote :

"If, like us, you spent the majority of chemistry class studiously analyzing the insides of your eyelids, you may not recall that thorium is a mildly radioactive metal with an atomic weight of 90."

Yeah, exactly

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM. Reason : can't believe they didn't correct it]

9/7/2011 9:08:32 AM

Quote :

"The thorium would be lased to generate heat"

Really guys, I lost it.

I mean, sweet Jesus I wish that I could come up with nonsense half as good as this.

9/7/2011 10:32:42 AM

To be honest I feel embarassed for posting this. mrfrog, did you go to the link and look into that at all? I do know Cadillac had a thorium concept vehicle in the recent past.

9/7/2011 10:52:13 AM

Quote :

"I do know Cadillac had a thorium concept vehicle in the recent past."

OH GOD I CAN'T RESPOND WITHOUT BEING INSULTING!

No, I'm glad you posted that. That was absolutely fantastic. I now know about Thorium Maxfelaser. No really, I didn't make that up! I can't believe I am quoting someone else about "Thorium Maxfelaser". I have got to stop laughing at this and get back to work.

I would love to see anything from an actual Cadillac source about Thorium powered cars. Even the vaguest stint of entertaining the idea. They shall know the burn of eternal ridicule.

The thorium powered car needs one of these too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

[Edited on September 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2011 11:01:50 AM

http://terralab.tripod.com/id14.html

LASER TURBINE POWER FOR GREEN ATMOSPHERIC WATER GENERATOR AND ELECTRICITY

And there it is:



I want to create a full faux description of this technology. Turbo Encabulator move over!

9/7/2011 11:18:00 AM