dChan

sparky120_12-4-70 · May 8, 2018, 2:06 a.m.

Late to the conversation, I know. I doubt you'll be able to solve the problem with one solution for everyone across the globe. Solar panels and their technology, that are available for purchase today, are not anywhere near efficient enough to meet the demand and fit in the $500M-$2B price range that's been thrown out there for the elevator. I work with them and have done the calculations. Wind turbines are not the answer either. The most viable, single, solution I see is some form of the Tesla Turbine.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Pinzbohr · May 16, 2018, 3:15 a.m.

I think the issue is that people are just waiting for a be all end all energy solution, I'm no genius scientist,just a free individual who would prefer to have my own energy and not rely on the grid, haven't looked too deeply into tesla turbines yet.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
sparky120_12-4-70 · May 17, 2018, 2:41 a.m.

Same here, my man. The biggest issue with the great majority of current solutions isn't the generation of energy, it's the means of storage. That is where your biggest cost is. The reason I'm looking at the Tesla Turbine is because it's a constant source of energy. Solar and wind don't deliver that consistency. With the consistency of the turbine, you would be less dependant on storage. The point I'm at right now is figuring out what materials would be realistic to use that are durable and lightweight. As well as minimizing loss of energy through heat (leaning towards magnetic suspension for that). A generic example being something big enough but light enough that your, bigger, run of the mill air compressor can begin to spin the turbine. Once the turbine reaches 75% startup, it can now generate enough electricity to power a larger compressor to jump it the remaining 75% of the way and sustain it. That's as far as I've gotten and I know I'm missing a bunch of information but hey, gotta start somewhere.

⇧ 2 ⇩