Slashdot Mirror

Medium cloud coverage could reduce total irradiance down to 300 W/m2 and low-hanging clouds could bring it down to 230 W/m2. If it is really really overcast, you might end up with less than 150 W/m2 in the middle of the day.http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/clouds-and-pollution.htm

That's 15%, not 50%.

Burning stuff produces most energy at least cost, huh? Me thinks someone needs to go back to school:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Measures_of_engine_performance

"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[11] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[12]"

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station

"Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and up to 50% for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Plants designed to achieve peak efficiency while operating at capacity will be less efficient when operating off-design (i.e. temperatures too low.)[3]"

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

"GE H series power generation gas turbine: in combined cycle configuration, this 480-megawatt unit has a rated thermal efficiency of 60%."

"A large single cycle gas turbine typically produces 100 to 400 megawatts of power and have 35â"40% thermal efficiency.[15]"

"Typical microturbine efficiencies are 25 to 35%. When in a combined heat and power cogeneration system, efficiencies of greater than 80% are commonly achieved." [80% or better is great, but limited applications]

And all these methods of combustion produce carbon emissions, even the gas turbines. Granted, smaller amounts, but not zero.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Efficiency

"Single p-n junction crystalline silicon devices are now approaching the theoretical limiting efficiency of 37.7%, noted as the Shockleyâ"Queisser limit in 1961. However multiple layer solar cells have a theoretical limit of 86%"

From: http://renewableenergyindex.com/renewable-energy-questions/how-efficient-is-tidal-power

"Tidal power is actually incredibly efficient (85% efficiency) when compared to things like coal power plants (30% efficiency) which is where the majority of electricity currently comes from."

From: http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/wind-enrgy.html

"Mr. Betz pointed this out and then proceeded to prove, with solid physics and math, that the best that could be achieved by a wind turbine is around 59%. In other words, a perfect best-possible wind turbine would be able to convert almost 59% of the power in the wind into mechanical rotating power."

Looks to me like efficiencies aren't that far off from burned stuff alternatives, and at least solar has some head room to get a lot better. Wind and tidal are mechanical-to-electrical processes so you would expect them to be lower efficiencies, but still within acceptable ranges given the zero emissions.

So, my point? We need to bring up the efficiencies of non-combustible means of power generation for work and stop burning stuff! Burning stuff does us no good and, is not overall more efficient than wind, solar and tidal when combined in similar usage patterns. To use the "but-it's-the-most-efficient-way-we-have" argument is ridiculous because that's true only due to the oil, coal and LNG industries stifling research budgets and buying up (and then dumping in a closet somewhere) technologies that might change their dominance. The tidal, solar and wind technologies would be farther along if research budgets hadn't been cut in the past 30 years. Advances are coming quickly now that renewed funding has been

"ID's premise is not that there're things science can't explain, but that there're specific things which science has explained... are impossible. Nevertheless, they exist."

1. Something which does exist is actually impossible, according to scientists?

2. Something which does exist has not been explained by science?

Neither of these prove anything about ID. In the case of 1, no, science has not proven that something that exists does not exist. So that is a false claim if that what you were saying. If you are trying to say 2, then the key word here is that it has not yet been explained by science. Which is the whole point here. Just because science lacks an explanation for something now doesn't mean that it is magic.

"Not fully understanding how something works does not mean the explanation must then be magic"

"Evolution is just laced with references to insensate bacteria "striving" toward this or that goal, or "developing" some feature or other"

"There's no workable driving mechanism, either, random mutations just aren't cutting the mustard."

"ID's premise is not that there're things science can't explain, but that there're specific things which science has explained... are impossible. Nevertheless, they exist."

1. Something which does exist is actually impossible, according to scientists?

2. Something which does exist has not been explained by science?

Neither of these prove anything about ID. In the case of 1, no, science has not proven that something that exists does not exist. So that is a false claim if that what you were saying. If you are trying to say 2, then the key word here is that it has not yet been explained by science. Which is the whole point here. Just because science lacks an explanation for something now doesn't mean that it is magic.

"Not fully understanding how something works does not mean the explanation must then be magic"

"Evolution is just laced with references to insensate bacteria "striving" toward this or that goal, or "developing" some feature or other"

"There's no workable driving mechanism, either, random mutations just aren't cutting the mustard."

"Mysteries don't prove science is bunk. They are the reason for science."
-- Dr. Galapagos

"It doesn't mean bees can't fly, or that engineers say they can't fly. It just means that insect flight is very complicated and, even with computers, our fluid dynamic modeling techniques aren't yet able to quite handle such a complicated problem. Then there's the problem of verification. If you can't measure the pressures and velocities around a wing, how can you verify your calculations?"

At least says Dr. Galapagos

Your moth example just shows that variation in distribution of existing genetic material. It doesn't show any evolution at all.

Ok, look: whales have hands inside their flippers. You can make up all the crazy irrational things you want to try and explain it away, but the simplest explanation is evolution.

When I was a kid, I believed in things like Santa Claus, God, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. All 4 are lies passed down by our parents to amuse us. It's just that the first generation forgot to tell their kids that God isn't real. Now we're adults. We can figure it out for ourselves.