tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post5340525309598324064..comments2023-10-24T04:13:08.609-07:00Comments on blog~nano: Nanoscale Science, Nanotechnologies and Molecular Manufacturing: I believe in Renewable Energy, and here's whyRocky Rawsternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16814453828084049788noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-8511534199254629612012-02-14T07:29:38.296-08:002012-02-14T07:29:38.296-08:00Such a small think. ;-) But such a great ideaSuch a small think. ;-) But such a great ideaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-73700418765782252832011-11-29T00:33:26.286-08:002011-11-29T00:33:26.286-08:00I also love the renewable energy. The big problems...I also love the renewable energy. The big problems on world of Global Warming could be reduced by cutting the use of coals , petrol and diesel. We should more use of electricity in our daily needs and this electricity should be come from the the solar energy systems. We should develop new energy sources with the help of nanotechnology related parts as nanoparticles and more.nanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201881916654320961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-75207665860858667172011-09-20T22:59:49.617-07:002011-09-20T22:59:49.617-07:00What a lovely post, You are really a deep thinker ...What a lovely post, You are really a deep thinker and I am glad to see I am not the only one paying attention at this topic.Press Release Submissionhttp://pageup-pressrelease-network.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-78799061300491760542011-06-19T03:24:57.164-07:002011-06-19T03:24:57.164-07:00Really good post!Really good post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-6539404200877961772011-05-24T01:01:30.206-07:002011-05-24T01:01:30.206-07:00Hi - I am definitely delighted to discover this. g...Hi - I am definitely delighted to discover this. great job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3374208892368718379.post-71041784089495824272011-05-05T14:30:46.756-07:002011-05-05T14:30:46.756-07:00Thank you for your post and your efforts runing yo...Thank you for your post and your efforts runing your blog.<br /><br />Nobody can argue with "I believe in Renewable Energy", as a belief that everyone is entitled to. However, the "and here's why", I believe can be argued with: <br /><br />1. That science/technology progresses faster than a linear imagined extrapolation. This should be separated into science and engineering. Science defines the framework in which engineering of applications takes place. Progress speed in one may not match the other. An example: no engineering can put the MeV of energy of a nuclear reaction into a chemical (outer shell electrons) one. Even in the case of potential LENR reactions the nucleus has to be involved to reach high energy.<br /><br />2. Energy storage is crucial for the viability of renewables. Too often this is, while acknowledged, dismissed as an easy engineering exercise as in this article. Given the energy amounts to be stored over a duration several days at least, the required infrastructure is huge, non-existent even in planning form. Most viable appear huge mechanical or thermal storage devices but their efficiency is limited. For a picture: the equivalent 1GW of a nuclear reactor requires the equivalent of a fairly large mountain to be used for a mechanical storage device. You can calculate the numbers, e.g., for 2 days for yourself. This means that when efficiencies and availability factor (wind ~30%) are included, you need to install double or triple the capacity you have for high availability sources. Some of these factors will not go away with any amount of engineering.<br />Some energy limits set for energy storage can be found here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density<br /><br />3. Maintenance: the fairly low energy density in case of wind and solar results in a relatively large bulk of the energy generation infrastructure. In turn this leads to a fairly large expenditure for construction and maintenance, often also neglected.<br /><br />4. Cars: <br />electric/grid storage: what is more energy efficient, a 1-2 l/100km light fuel-based car or a heavy battery-driven car that has to transport a fairly large and bulky battery mass? How can moving around a low energy/high mass battery be more efficient overall? If, e.g., liquid fuel is created in a renewable fashion by algae or cellulose, how can it not beat the car based grid storage in efficiency? <br /><br />hydrogen: Does a 700bar hydrogen tank make you feel good in your vehicle? That is proposed to match volume energy density of liquid fuels. Engineering does not improve hydrogen energy density by volume. What happens in an accident? Why do people still propose it?<br />5. Solar energy: It is a very thin source of energy to start with. It loses a typical factor 5 between orbit and ground, due to atmosphere, day/night cycles, latitude, etc. Even if the efficiency of the engineering ekes out 50 or 60% of the solar spectral energy, it would be a thin source, which requires a vast and vulnerable infrastructure to produce reasonable energy amounts.<br /><br /><br />--------<br /><br />Remaining questions then are:<br />Why not put things in numbers, such as levelized energy costs, full up comparisons, apples to apples. For example:<br />- did your rooftop solar pay for itself? How long will it take when compared to the electricity price at your place? Does that factor in the pollution/waste by special materials in your solar cells and their production?<br />- how long can you store energy in flywheels, even if they are CNT based? What is the engineering limit? Currently batteris and flywheels are only used for stabilization as you write, not for multi-day storage. Why is that? What are the top three limitations?<br />- what are tradeoffs between storing energy in a car and driving it around vs. building a highly efficient car that carries as little fuel if possible? Bicycles, trikes, or Acabions anyone?<br /><br />Full up comparisons are not popular because they are hard and have their limitations. But they can be critiqued and improved on in the best Kennedyesque effort to tackle the hard problems.datarimlenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09518415545045788378noreply@blogger.com