<p>That’s a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are going to jail, buddy!</p>
<p>I’m going to challenge the law in the Supreme Science Foundation. The law is unscientific.</p>
<p>This guy from Honeywell is a mechanical engineer. He came back to give a lecture as an alum. He said he worked on the design process, which is basically designing the case of the system, let say an alarm. But there are experts in Material science that can help him choose the best material. Although ME has taken MS, he didn’t specialize in that area. But he worked with the MSE throughout the design process to ensure the best quality with the least investment cost. </p>
<p>Here is a quote:
</p>
<p>A great example would be steel. There are SO many types of steel. The manufacturing process is a chemical process, isn’t it?
I am not suggesting that it takes all three of them to figure out. But based on so many presentations that I have been to, these three disciplines are so often involved in product design process.</p>
<p>lol i heard about this physics-lover homemaded a nuclear reactor in Brooklyn, NYC . He was one of the 3x th people in the world who did it outside of a laboratory.</p>
<p>The reactor is not radioactive.</p>
<p>edited:
oh i found it
<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/23/2010-06-23_gucci_web_designer_mark_suppes_builds_homemade_nuclear_reactor_in_brooklyn_wareh.html[/url]”>http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/23/2010-06-23_gucci_web_designer_mark_suppes_builds_homemade_nuclear_reactor_in_brooklyn_wareh.html</a></p>
<p>What is this for?</p>
<p>^ for fun lmao he made a nuclear fusion reactor. oh i want to make one myself too :(</p>
<p>You should do some research on the renewable tech implementation that is currently going on in Europe and China. Countries like Austria, Denmark, and Sweden already get huge percentage of their electricity from alternative energies. Germany is focusing a lot on wind power while Spain is expanding its solar power generation. China is rapidly developing renewable energy because it wants to be energy independent. </p>
<p>If you plan on going into the field, I would go outside the U.S. This country lacks the political will to get serious about transitioning away from fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Make a nuclear reactor the size of a microwave, collect uranium, energy for the next 99999 years.</p>
<p>Solar power requires the sun, which is only available on average 12 hrs a day, assuming no clouds. And even with no clouds based on where the sun is the amount changes.
Wind power requires lots of wind, and to top it off, there is a limit to the amount of energy you can extract from wind. Plus windfarms are noisy ugly and kill lots of birds.<br>
Geothermal is nice, but you need a geothermal vent, which are plentiful in iceland, but not the US.<br>
Biofuels require corn or something else. This raises the price of that and starves people in poor countries. Also it discourages crop rotation which destroys farmland and desertifies the landscape.<br>
Tidal harnesses suffer from similar problems as wind, but instead need to be in water.</p>
<p>So this leaves coal, nuclear and oil. Nuclear is expensive. Coal and oil are dirty and not nearly as environmentally friendly.</p>
<p>So it comes down to this for how a mechanical engineer can help: make things more energy efficient without compromising on creature comforts. While some people might be willing to reduce the amount of comfort they get, most people want their creature comforts.</p>
<p>
Perhaps you’re the one who needs to do the research. Sweden, yes. Austria & Denmark? I don’t think so. As for focusing on wind power, it cannot sustain our population - it’s not a feasible method no matter how massive you make the farms. As GoOakland put it, it cannot be “scalable to nations’ demands.” Likewise goes for solar power. Hydro is the best after disregarding coal/oil/gas/nuclear, but even then it cannot sustain our population. The only problem with nuclear power is 1) nuclear waste and 2) money. One(1) can be a bit controversial, but we always find ways around it - as well, if we can somehow make nuclear fusion feasible and scale it into a full power plant, well, problem fixed; goodbye fission and all the waste accompanying it. Two(2) can only be fixed with time.</p>
<p>EngineerHead: I suggest you do a simple google search to prove yourself wrong. As of 2006, renewable energy accounts for 63% of Austria’s electrical consumption and 26% of Denmark’s. They haven’t gone 100%, but those are significant percentages. I’m sure they have improved upon those numbers in the past 4 years. </p>
<p>And you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not saying lets jump onto renewable energy overnight, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing to accelerate the transition. Yes, we need fossil fuels for the next several decades, but we can lessen our dependence. We can start expanding solar power in the Southwest, geothermal power in California, hydropower in the Rockies, wind power off the coasts. It won’t cover all our needs, but it can cover some of it.</p>
<p>The thing about countries like Austria and Denmark is that they are very small countries with small populations, yet they have a very high GDP per capita. This means the average person is very wealthy. This is why they are able to use renewable energy so much because people can afford the high costs and high rates associated with it. This model is unrealistic when talking about countries where the majority of the world population resides such as China, USA and India. So far only very wealthy countries with smaller populations aka European countries have been able to find a suitable model to work with that succesfully allows them to use a majority of alternative methods.</p>
<p>Until Fossil Fuels cease being the cheapest, most efficient energy resource I garuntee we will not switch. Even the threat of global warming is not enough for us to switch quickly. </p>
<p>The transition to alternative energy will be slow and steady. But remember, Slow and steady wins the race!</p>
<p>No need to get feisty.</p>
<p>Xinio, for Austria, that number is for domestic generation - the electricity that they produce; not consumption - big difference. <a href=“Energy - European Commission”>Energy - European Commission; As of 2004, only 23% of consumption comes from “other” (alternative) energy sources. I don’t see this reasonably jumping up to 63% in a matter of 2 years. As of 2004, 77% of their energy consumption comes from gas/oil/coal. Given the logic, if 63% is the 2006 value for *domestic generation<a href=“not%20consumption”>/i</a>, then it has actually decreased from 71% (this value obtained from given website). Given this trend, tell me again, exactly how sure are you that “they have improved upon those numbers in the past 4 years?”(see below) As for Denmark, I called this one out because MANY countries are close to that number - including the US, and we as US citizens certainly don’t view our country as “[getting a] huge percentage of [our] electricity from alternative energies.” Rather, we view our country as having an addictive dependence on other sources.</p>
<p>If you think logically, no country can “improve” their values in 4 years. The electricity that they generate through alternative sources remains stagnant until they implement new measures - and even then, it still remains stagnant until these new “measures” are finalized and built. Meanwhile, during the 4 years, with the inevitable increasing energy consumption, they must locate the newly needed energy elsewhere: coal/oil/gas -thereby decreasing the percentage values for alternative sources, not improving. </p>
<p>
As for this, I wasn’t doing anything of the sort. I don’t see what I said could have been seen as putting words in your mouth! But whatever could have been seen as such was only stated for the purposes of this thread.</p>
<p>why don’t we just pave our streets differently?
collect heats and any other forms of energy through motions and convert these energy into electricity.
I have read this a year ago because I was interested in it. Someone from Israel did it. Well, the mechanism was awesome, but nobody would construct their streets that way. Way too expensive. lmao</p>
<p>That would be one of those ideas that is good in theory but incredibly impractical. The difficulty in repairing those roads would be huge, and making whatever is inside serviceable while still maintaining structural integrity would be nearly impossible.</p>
<p>We should just practice load shedding and cut power to homes for certain times of the day. They practice that in India/Pakistan and it saves them a lot of energy. It also makes it so that people do not take electricity for granted and use it sparingly.</p>
<p>Or we could have cut of limits where a home may only use a certain amount of electricity a day and the power is automatically cut off until the next day.</p>
<p>@ alchemist,
I live in NYC, and ConEd alarmed the City on Monday because the temperature had reached a new record since 1999. ConEd stated that the NYC residents should prepare for any electricity shortage. It advised the residents to save electricity by unplugging unused power-cords, i.e. chargers, microwave power, television power, and etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can post any limit. First it is against the contract, and unless it is an emergency situation which the City council (the local government) has to acknowledge and agree.</p>
<p>Another problem with NYC (and probably large urban centers) is that there are not enough trees around to absorb heat and too many heat producing systems. Now, a practical solution would be to paint all roofs white.</p>
<p>^ Yes. I also read a news about a week ago. This guy was granted some money to paint a mountain to “produce” a colder weather. Some scientists said his effort may bring about 2-3 degrees down in that area, and eventually can bring back some ices.</p>
<p>I mentioned this to my sister after I read this. I felt great when someone from CC mentioned this.</p>
<p>edited:
just found it
[Painting</a> a mountain to save a glacier | Yahoo! Green](<a href=“http://green.yahoo.com/blog/guest_bloggers/51/painting-a-mountain-to-save-a-glacier.html]Painting”>http://green.yahoo.com/blog/guest_bloggers/51/painting-a-mountain-to-save-a-glacier.html)
The energy secretary actually endorses this idea, and is suggesting the president to paint all the roofs white for all future houses as a standard.</p>
<p>Yes, sir. Practical solutions like those are the things that will “solve” the “energy crisis.” Doing the same or more with less. Better education in basic science.</p>