4 ms·

Calling it "alternative energy" always strikes me as a bit silly. It's an alternative source, the energy stays the same. From my limited research into energy s

Calling it "alternative energy" always strikes me as a bit silly. It's an alternative source, the energy stays the same. From my limited research into energy sources, both solar and wind seem like good short-term goals. The fundamental problems with both seems to be that it's not viable in many locations and it's not steady or predictable. With the space craze that has started developing in the last few years, I'm hopeful people will open up more to the idea of nuclear power. Nuclear is our only path to the stars! The article left me with more questions than answers. How do they define being a "leader in alternative energy", and why is it important? They don't provide enough evidence to prove this is the case. How do their efforts compare to other countries around the world? What effects would we expect this have on the host country? e.g. improved economy, quality of life, etc.?

patall 10y ago
Solar energy is a very long-term goal if you include a dyson sphere in your calculation. And even less long-term, it is not that bad for space travel as you have more and especially 24h coverage without an atmosphere and a planet to block the view. Even on earth, cheap wind and solar power may be used in the near future for (more) long term storage solutions like power-to-gas etc. With 3ct per kWh as currently planned in Dubai, that is entirely feasible. Nuclear power (I am not speaking about fusion as that is still down the road) is to the contrary rather short-term as the sources for uranium etc. are somewhat limited. And it wont get cheaper anymore. On the contrary we are still detecting down-sides of nuclear energy like it was detected in recent years that around nuclear plants there are significantly less female life birth and increased child tumor rates. Not much but for still around a thousand girls for a normal power plant over its life time. Of course, coal is not better in that regard but wind and solar are or at least will be.
pjc50 10y ago
Nuclear is too slow and too expensive. Even once you get past the permitting objections, it takes a long time to build the plants. And building nuclear plants in countries that don't currently have any is extremely problematic because of the arms proliferation question. I suspect that's a big factor in South America. I don't really see what nuclear has to do with space. Our short-to-medium term life is a question of keeping Earth safe, both politically and environmentally. While the energy costs of rockets are individually huge they're still not a significant percentage of our global energy consumption. The uplands of Chile, Peru, Bolivia etc are particularly suitable for solar, entirely viable and cloudless for most of the year. I've been to the altiplano: this https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21300817773/in/album-72157657104598053/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21300817773/in/a... is a short drive from La Paz, 4000m above sea level and 16 degrees south of the equator. Ideal landscape for solar farming. Edit: just remembered, while I was there I saw the floating islands of Lake Titicaca, which is an incredible way for people to live; a sort of houseboat built of reeds. The only modern convenience was a TV ... powered from a solar panel and car battery. Solar hot water is also already ubiquitous at that latitude - all you have to do is put a black barrel on your roof.
- adwn 10y ago
  > While the energy costs of rockets are individually huge they're still not a significant percentage of our global energy consumption. The limiting factor for chemical rocket propulsion is not the total energy consumed, but the specific impulse (the "mileage", i.e., efficiency). This is because rockets have to carry and accelerate all their fuel with them, leading to the size of the rocket growing exponentially with the speed you want to reach. For nuclear propulsion, it's still exponential, but the exponent is much smaller. Furthermore, electricity generation using solar panels quickly becomes infeasible with growing distance from the sun.

patall 10y ago

Solar energy is a very long-term goal if you include a dyson sphere in your calculation. And even less long-term, it is not that bad for space travel as you have more and especially 24h coverage without an atmosphere and a planet to block the view. Even on earth, cheap wind and solar power may be used in the near future for (more) long term storage solutions like power-to-gas etc. With 3ct per kWh as currently planned in Dubai, that is entirely feasible. Nuclear power (I am not speaking about fusion as that is still down the road) is to the contrary rather short-term as the sources for uranium etc. are somewhat limited. And it wont get cheaper anymore. On the contrary we are still detecting down-sides of nuclear energy like it was detected in recent years that around nuclear plants there are significantly less female life birth and increased child tumor rates. Not much but for still around a thousand girls for a normal power plant over its life time. Of course, coal is not better in that regard but wind and solar are or at least will be.

pjc50 10y ago

Nuclear is too slow and too expensive. Even once you get past the permitting objections, it takes a long time to build the plants. And building nuclear plants in countries that don't currently have any is extremely problematic because of the arms proliferation question. I suspect that's a big factor in South America. I don't really see what nuclear has to do with space. Our short-to-medium term life is a question of keeping Earth safe, both politically and environmentally. While the energy costs of rockets are individually huge they're still not a significant percentage of our global energy consumption. The uplands of Chile, Peru, Bolivia etc are particularly suitable for solar, entirely viable and cloudless for most of the year. I've been to the altiplano: this https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21300817773/in/album-72157657104598053/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/136766297@N06/21300817773/in/a... is a short drive from La Paz, 4000m above sea level and 16 degrees south of the equator. Ideal landscape for solar farming. Edit: just remembered, while I was there I saw the floating islands of Lake Titicaca, which is an incredible way for people to live; a sort of houseboat built of reeds. The only modern convenience was a TV ... powered from a solar panel and car battery. Solar hot water is also already ubiquitous at that latitude - all you have to do is put a black barrel on your roof.

adwn 10y ago
> While the energy costs of rockets are individually huge they're still not a significant percentage of our global energy consumption. The limiting factor for chemical rocket propulsion is not the total energy consumed, but the specific impulse (the "mileage", i.e., efficiency). This is because rockets have to carry and accelerate all their fuel with them, leading to the size of the rocket growing exponentially with the speed you want to reach. For nuclear propulsion, it's still exponential, but the exponent is much smaller. Furthermore, electricity generation using solar panels quickly becomes infeasible with growing distance from the sun.