I'm not trying to be funny here, but this idea came from a stoner. Just like the paper clip. They are both ideas so obvious that normal people don't see them. I think I just said this out loud.
libertydan
· 3 weeks ago
If it's profitable why not?
CaptainFrogbert
· 2 weeks ago
So if slavery is profitable, why not? (Or were you being sarcastic? If so, never mind. My Bad) On the other hand if your only criterion for morality is profitability you have a big future in the heroin, sex slavery and gun-running industries. Your mother must be so proud.
Susan Kraemer
· 2 weeks ago
It's not profitable.
Get Real
· 3 weeks ago
OR we could quit all this foolish research on these pie-in-the-sky concepts and just get started building clean and safe nuclear energy plants and create all the energy we need to run all of our households for the next 100 years. Then drill for the plentiful clean burning natural gas supplies that we have in this country. And finally, drill for the vast oil deposits we have off shore. We have all of the energy resources we need for the next 100 years available to us, if we just exploit them. There is no need to spend billions of dollars in research of solar and wind. They are not dependable to run a country especially at night or on calm days when the wind does not blow.
Jophus
· 3 weeks ago
I've always wondered why liberals don't like the idea of nuclear energy.
Get Real
· 3 weeks ago
Liberals don't like nuclear energy because of the stupid Jane Fonda move, China Syndrome. It was a lame movie filled with as much junk science as Al Gore's global warming slide show. It's just as simple as that.
Jophus
· 3 weeks ago
There is no legitimate reason behind not supporting it?
CaptainFrogbert
· 2 weeks ago
So what you're saying is that the movie is scientifically accurate and well-validated? Because that's what Gore's slide show is. You trolls will never learn, will you? We're smarter and better-informed than you are. You come here with your snide, half-witted slanders and bumper-sticker-informed ideology and we'll kick your butts right on from here to the end of the universe. Go home or be pummeled by the truth.
CaptainFrogbert
· 3 weeks ago
Maybe it's because nuclear energy is incredibly expensive and dangerous. Not because of stupid Jane Fonda movies, but because there is no safe way to store the waste for a quarter of a million years. So you have two options, pretend that there is a safe way to store millions of pounds of deadly radioactive waste (the industry "solution") or reprocess the waste into relatively safe material, a process which is ludicrously expensive, and so will never, ever be done.
Can a nuclear power plant be run without melting down? Yes. Can it be run without accidents? Possibly but unlikely, though accidents vary in severity. Can nuclear waste ever be safe without phenomenally expensive reprocessing? Never. But hey as long as it's not the nuclear executive's family that get to die in 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 years from finding some of our buried nuclear wastes, who cares? We can get rich now!
Nuclear power is only cheap because the industry cost-shifts its waste disposal process onto the taxpayers and future generations.
vkobaya
· 3 weeks ago
The problem with this solution is the cost of maintenance. Corrosion, wear and tear and growth of marine organisms will all limit the life span of such devices. What is the estimated lifespan and cost of total replacement? The potential power is massive, but so is the cost of maintenance and replacement.
Also what is the environmental impact? If there are accidents, say killing sea creatures, how bad can it get? Can there be serious impact on sea currents and if so, with what consequences?
CaptainFrogbert
· 3 weeks ago
So your solution is that since we don't have all the answers, let's not try? Given all the damage that coal power and nuclear power cause, isn't it worth spending some time and money trying new solutions? Besides, it's not as if coal plants and nuclear plants don't need repair and maintenance. Let's figure out the costs over time--and I'm sure that's already been done by Minesto (whether we can trust their answers is another issue). Rather than pose scary questions that you can't answer, why not address the issue with solutions?
vkobaya
· 2 weeks ago
So your solution is that since we don't have all the answers, let's not try?
Why are you being so hateful? I didn't say don't try it. I was simply pointing out that it is not all peaches and cream. While it sounds like an excellent idea, it also has drawbacks and may turn out to be more expensive than staying on land and working with wind and solar energy. Let's just examine these things critically before we go off half cocked.
Too much of what is promoted today as ecological is a corporate fraud abetted by government. All those new cars and new appliances that are supposed to save energy actually have a massive manufacturing carbon footprint that cannot be recovered with the small efficiency improvements that the new products offer. The CFLs use 90% less power in operation, but their startup power consumption is humongous and that power consumption cannot be recovered by the normal operation, that is, switching the lights on and off as is normally done. Also, those CFLs also don't last any longer than incandescent bulbs but the manufacturing energy footprint is many times that of an incadenscent bulb and they also are much more toxic to dispose of than an incandescent bulb.
When industry and government collaborate to tell us what is good for us, beware, it is usually to benefit the industries, corporations, the wealthy, powerful and elite and to our detriment. Almost everything that they have given us that is newer and better has been better for their profit line at the expense of our environment. There are many, many technologies that engineering and science professors can tell you about that are not implemented by industry because they are cheaper and less profitable than current technologies. Maybe this idea of harnessing ocean currents through the use of deepwater kites is one of those superior technologies, or maybe it is another corporate scam to enrich the corporations at the expense of the people and killing mother earth.
My point: THINK!
dances_with_beagles
· 3 weeks ago
So, I guess we need more global warming and hurricanes to generate wave action.
I love crazy ideas like this. I think this one might be a little too crazy to attract the necessary funding. But who knows, maybe some element of this will be the key to the next great invention?
Since we're in ocean-power mode, here's an idea that seems a lot simpler and a lot more practical, as it harnesses the energy of slow moving water: Its called VIVACE.
It has analogs to wind-power generation as well.
-S
Susan Kraemer
· 2 weeks ago
Thanks for the linky goodness, Americablog.
I have actually covered several other really cool wave energy ideas for cleantechnica. It's a wide open field.
Here's one that is even more blindingly obvious from Finland that I will get to cover in real life in December:
All Comments
Can a nuclear power plant be run without melting down? Yes. Can it be run without accidents? Possibly but unlikely, though accidents vary in severity. Can nuclear waste ever be safe without phenomenally expensive reprocessing? Never. But hey as long as it's not the nuclear executive's family that get to die in 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 years from finding some of our buried nuclear wastes, who cares? We can get rich now!
Nuclear power is only cheap because the industry cost-shifts its waste disposal process onto the taxpayers and future generations.
Also what is the environmental impact? If there are accidents, say killing sea creatures, how bad can it get? Can there be serious impact on sea currents and if so, with what consequences?
Why are you being so hateful? I didn't say don't try it. I was simply pointing out that it is not all peaches and cream. While it sounds like an excellent idea, it also has drawbacks and may turn out to be more expensive than staying on land and working with wind and solar energy. Let's just examine these things critically before we go off half cocked.
Too much of what is promoted today as ecological is a corporate fraud abetted by government. All those new cars and new appliances that are supposed to save energy actually have a massive manufacturing carbon footprint that cannot be recovered with the small efficiency improvements that the new products offer. The CFLs use 90% less power in operation, but their startup power consumption is humongous and that power consumption cannot be recovered by the normal operation, that is, switching the lights on and off as is normally done. Also, those CFLs also don't last any longer than incandescent bulbs but the manufacturing energy footprint is many times that of an incadenscent bulb and they also are much more toxic to dispose of than an incandescent bulb.
When industry and government collaborate to tell us what is good for us, beware, it is usually to benefit the industries, corporations, the wealthy, powerful and elite and to our detriment. Almost everything that they have given us that is newer and better has been better for their profit line at the expense of our environment. There are many, many technologies that engineering and science professors can tell you about that are not implemented by industry because they are cheaper and less profitable than current technologies. Maybe this idea of harnessing ocean currents through the use of deepwater kites is one of those superior technologies, or maybe it is another corporate scam to enrich the corporations at the expense of the people and killing mother earth.
My point: THINK!
Since we're in ocean-power mode, here's an idea that seems a lot simpler and a lot more practical, as it harnesses the energy of slow moving water: Its called VIVACE.
It has analogs to wind-power generation as well.
-S
I have actually covered several other really cool wave energy ideas for cleantechnica. It's a wide open field.
Here's one that is even more blindingly obvious from Finland that I will get to cover in real life in December:
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/11/02/waveroller-...
Here's one where a military contractor is teamed up with the wild and crazy wave energy inventor (the perfect combo fundingwise) http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/18/reliable-wa...