Really? then they should find a way for their CPUs to use less power or to overclock using their onboard heatsink fans to power utilizing kinetic energy... so its like using power from the socket to further power the cpu or board with its onboard CPU fan....... lol
I'm so sick of hearing about wind and solar. The future of renewable energy production... what a load of crap! Our electrical grid requires a stable, steady source of power. Wind and solar are anything but. In order to smooth out the curve of energy production from sources that fluxtuate so wildly, you would need a traditional generating plant. The problem with that is, they don't power-up on a moments notice. It can take a couple of hours to bring a traditional fossil fuel power plant to full capacity. The electrical grid won't tolerate that. You can't keep generating plants running if their power isn't needed; that electricity has to go somewhere.
What we really need is a for energy storage technology to evolve. That's probably our biggest technology shortcoming right now. Everything else has evolved at a Moore's Law pace, but not batteries. Their progress has been a very shallow, linear progression. If we had battery technology that was equivalence to today's processor technology, then wind, solar, hyrid-electric and full electric cars would become practical and truely economical. Until then, our best hope for migrating away from fossil-fuel generating plants is nuclear.
On any kind of scale, I agree with jellico. The lag on power plants is phenomenal. Where solar power is useful is for site-specific installations, such as individual businesses and homes, to take on some or even all of the demand of that site during peak hours. It is still too expensive; I'd come up with $10K for a solar installation on my house, but not $50K+. Wind is cheaper, but has problems all its own. I'd put up a small windmill too, but I'm in a wind zone 1 with too many tall trees around.
There's been some improvement in battery chemistry (I'm just now learning more about LiPO and LiFePO), but not enough.
Bottom line is, nuclear IS the way to go. Nuclear waste is not a small issue, but eliminating artificial barriers to reprocessing it would go a long way.
[citation][nom]wikipedia[/nom]jellico - please look up hydroelectric power storage. there are many ways to store the power that wind and solar produce but traditional batteries are probably the least green way of doing it.[/citation]
I've quite familiar with the process of pumping water into a reservoir to store potential energy and then letting it out through hydroelectric turbines to recapture it when needed. It's a pretty neat solution; but it is also very expensive and not easily distributed throughout the grid. You also have a loss of energy since it takes power to pump the water uphill as well as entropy losses due to energy conversion.
Ultimately, we would still be better off building a bunch of nuclear plants while scientists continue to work on new technologies, whatever those might be (fusion, self-sustaining hydrogen production, zero-point energy, matter/anti-matter reactors, etc).
you don't quite get it. you don't just have wind but you use it with other sources like hydro. so when it's dry and windy you use solar and wind when it's wet and no wind you use the hydro. they work very well together. sure you can just start up wind when you want like you can with other sources but that's not an issue if it is managed right.
There is nothing great about nuclear. you can't put one in the middle of a desert as it will fry itself, has toxic waste and if some goes wrong just look a Chernobyl leaves one huge waste land for years.
why spend all that water just cooling when you can use it to produce the power without the waste?
hydro has many advantages over thermal plants. They can store months supply of electricity and don't have the waste issue plus their fuel is free.
"I've quite familiar with the process of pumping water into a reservoir to store potential energy and then letting it out through hydroelectric turbines to recapture it when needed. It's a pretty neat solution; but it is also very expensive and not easily distributed throughout the grid. You also have a loss of energy since it takes power to pump the water uphill as well as entropy losses due to energy conversion."
you don't pump the water uphill but you have massive dams on a river so it refills itself when it rains. and how is having one massive nuclear plan any more efficient for power distribution? small nuclear plants just isn't cost effective.
If you call hyro plants expensive you should look at the cost of nuclear. There is no other form of generation that costs as much as nuclear to build and takes years to pay back while wind and solar are cheap by comparison.