DeletedUser8396
Guest
I'm still a proponent of a Tokyo sized stadium...
Hey guys I need help with a poll real quick! Can you take it? 1 question.
DeletedUser5819
Guest
I tried to do your poll quickly, but I didn't understand the question. Better than what?
So....Why this poll Arshark?
Bottom line - Pavement Energy Harvesting
I tried reading here to see if it helped, but it didn't. tbf it was all so long that I began to skim and then came to something I felt I could generally agree with.
So, back to the poll.... Better than what?
At first I thought you meant would solar be better than biomass, or biomass better than solar, but then I found the "other" option, which confused matters. It also obviously would include the nuclear option.
Where is your stadium? My answer would probably be different for Texas vs Dublin, or Athens vs Idaho.
Its in the nature of solar energy that it is not continuously produced, and so it is part of the deal that it either feeds into a supply with mixed production methods and/or is used to produce some stored energy format such as in a battery or to make hydrogen which can be transported and utilised when/where needed. I probably would not advocate storing large quantities of hydrogen in/under/near a stadium.
Biomass also needs to be transported, at least for the likely location and appetite of a stadium. It also creates byproducts (eg air particulates and solid waste) which would be unwelcome in (or upwind of) any large conurbation. I am going to suppose that your stadium would be positioned close to where a lot of people are.
Transportation and transformation between storage options both use (waste) energy in themselves.
I am not sure why wind power did not get a mention. Stadia tend to be quite tall and wide, and if the weather doesn't cooperate you could just get everyone to blow. I mean cheer.
Also what about pavement energy harvesting? I would have thought a stadium would be the ideal place for this technology, with all that foot stamping and jumping around just exactly when you need it. Not to mention natural downtimes for maintenance and replacement without inconveniencing anyone at all. Better still, get this method ringfenced to provide all the celebratory flashing lights and music when a side has a reason to celebrate. This creates a new competition to show which side has the most support. I am liking this idea more and more.
I think the best power source for a stadium would be the national grid, with a mixed supply line which would include both solar and biomass contributions, though likely neither as the biggest player. This would bypass reliance on systems which might fail, be sabotaged, or fall foul of industrial/public relations. It would need to include some contribution from fuels which can be ramped up or down at short notice, such as (but probably not limited to) gas turbines. That's the gaseous form of gas for you north americans out there.
Most importantly the stadium managers would need to proactively communicate their timetable and likely needs continuously and with a good notice period to the managers of the energy supply. I imagine this is already the case for existing stadia.
That shouldn't be taken to imply an opinion on nuclear issues, but more that skully debates awesomely.
So, back to the poll.... Better than what?
At first I thought you meant would solar be better than biomass, or biomass better than solar, but then I found the "other" option, which confused matters. It also obviously would include the nuclear option.
Where is your stadium? My answer would probably be different for Texas vs Dublin, or Athens vs Idaho.
Its in the nature of solar energy that it is not continuously produced, and so it is part of the deal that it either feeds into a supply with mixed production methods and/or is used to produce some stored energy format such as in a battery or to make hydrogen which can be transported and utilised when/where needed. I probably would not advocate storing large quantities of hydrogen in/under/near a stadium.
Biomass also needs to be transported, at least for the likely location and appetite of a stadium. It also creates byproducts (eg air particulates and solid waste) which would be unwelcome in (or upwind of) any large conurbation. I am going to suppose that your stadium would be positioned close to where a lot of people are.
Transportation and transformation between storage options both use (waste) energy in themselves.
I am not sure why wind power did not get a mention. Stadia tend to be quite tall and wide, and if the weather doesn't cooperate you could just get everyone to blow. I mean cheer.
Also what about pavement energy harvesting? I would have thought a stadium would be the ideal place for this technology, with all that foot stamping and jumping around just exactly when you need it. Not to mention natural downtimes for maintenance and replacement without inconveniencing anyone at all. Better still, get this method ringfenced to provide all the celebratory flashing lights and music when a side has a reason to celebrate. This creates a new competition to show which side has the most support. I am liking this idea more and more.
I think the best power source for a stadium would be the national grid, with a mixed supply line which would include both solar and biomass contributions, though likely neither as the biggest player. This would bypass reliance on systems which might fail, be sabotaged, or fall foul of industrial/public relations. It would need to include some contribution from fuels which can be ramped up or down at short notice, such as (but probably not limited to) gas turbines. That's the gaseous form of gas for you north americans out there.
Most importantly the stadium managers would need to proactively communicate their timetable and likely needs continuously and with a good notice period to the managers of the energy supply. I imagine this is already the case for existing stadia.
So....Why this poll Arshark?
Bottom line - Pavement Energy Harvesting
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Thats what you said on the first page mate.
This is what you say now, i will be glad to know,if i could even make you think for a moment about the people who have suffered the consequences or are still suffering.I came here to comment only because your comment came accross to me as every protester is ignorant,but if you dint mean that,then it was my bad.Also i have to admit,i learned a lot from your arguments.
DeletedUser29066
Guest
just let it go
DeletedUser8396
Guest
Nah, I'm good on making my own decisions. Thanks for the general suggestion though
DeletedUser29066
Guest
To afford to build a stadium the size of Tokyo you would need The Diamond as Big as the Ritz
DeletedUser5819
Guest
Cheesy biscuits ftwTo afford to build a stadium the size of Tokyo you would need The Diamond as Big as the Ritz
DeletedUser33530
Guest
Nah, I'm good on making my own decisions. Thanks for the general suggestion though
I really wish this was a lie.
DeletedUser
Guest
Stop trying to make a Tokyo sized stadium happen. It's not going to happen.
Wind power was probably not mentioned because small-scaled wind turbines are pretty shít.
They are very inefficient, need to be placed in very specific locations and need a reasonable amount of wind to produce relevant amounts of power.On the other hand, your pavement energy harvesting idea is awesome! I never thought of that as an alternative; In fact I didn't even know it existed.
I still stand by those statements as they're not mutually exclusive. Nuclear is our safest options at the moment but that doesn't mean it's the ideal option. There are still a few downsides to nuclear energy most notably the cost and the byproducts. The ideal solution does not exist (yet), the closest thing we have to it is probably thorium which is still a very young technology.Thats what you said on the first page mate.
This is what you say now, i will be glad to know,if i could even make you think for a moment about the people who have suffered the consequences or are still suffering.I came here to comment only because your comment came accross to me as every protester is ignorant,but if you dint mean that,then it was my bad.Also i have to admit,i learned a lot from your arguments.
DeletedUser
Guest
Stop trying to make a Tokyo sized stadium happen. It's not going to happen.
Wind power was probably not mentioned because small-scaled wind turbines are pretty shít.
On the other hand, your pavement energy harvesting idea is awesome! I never thought of that as an alternative; In fact I didn't even know it existed.
I still stand by those statements as they're not mutually exclusive. Nuclear is our safest options at the moment but that doesn't mean it's the ideal option. There are still a few downsides to nuclear energy most notably the cost and the byproducts. The ideal solution does not exist (yet), the closest thing we have to it is probably thorium which is still a very young technology.
Hey Skullyhoofd!
You Lied!
DeletedUser33530
Guest
:heh: You were never debating. All you did was show up and say everyone is wrong and I am right.
DeletedUser
Guest
Lol what? Sure buddy. Again a post with such irrefutable claims..Hey Skullyhoofd!
No point in continuing a debate with liars.
You Lied!
Like CoD said you never really debated me as the only posts you've made were either exactly like CoD described, or ignoring all my rebuttals and then suddenly bringing up a completely different point like vulnerability to military attacks.
I was actually excited to see what was in your spoiler, expecting a response to my previous (counter)arguments and a reason for why I lied but alas, it appears I expected too much of you. Oh well.
In response to your closing statement, debating with liars should be extremely easy as lies are quite easy to point out, even more so in a text-based debate.
DeletedUser23986
Guest
Time to drop the purple colour!
DeletedUser5819
Guest
Sorry Hasan, its been so long I forgot it had that meaning
The problem with following your reasoning here though is that I would also have to forgo red, green, yellow, blue and orange.
The problem with following your reasoning here though is that I would also have to forgo red, green, yellow, blue and orange.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Lol what? Sure buddy. Again a post with such irrefutable claims..
Like CoD said you never really debated me as the only posts you've made were either exactly like CoD described, or ignoring all my rebuttals and then suddenly bringing up a completely different point like vulnerability to military attacks.
I was actually excited to see what was in your spoiler, expecting a response to my previous (counter)arguments and a reason for why I lied but alas, it appears I expected too much of you. Oh well.
In response to your closing statement, debating with liars should be extremely easy as lies are quite easy to point out, even more so in a text-based debate.
Almost every debate is a rush at the start and then ends in disappointment.
DeletedUser
Guest
Wait! This isn't over! I was all ready to consider nuclear energy as perhaps the safest means of energy but I brought it up in conversation with a chemistry professor I know and she brought up some good points! She disagreed and instead said solar power is actually closer to being the safest.
You have to consider that while less people have died while working with nuclear energy, you have to also consider the fact that less people work with nuclear energy, while way more do in every other area of energy, such as solar and oil, etc. There are also way less nuclear power plants than other energy structures (oil rigs, etc). She also stated that given the potential damage a nuclear meltdown could cause to a city it isn't the safest, even though she admitted that most people imagine a meltdown worst than it actually is.
Counter?
You have to consider that while less people have died while working with nuclear energy, you have to also consider the fact that less people work with nuclear energy, while way more do in every other area of energy, such as solar and oil, etc. There are also way less nuclear power plants than other energy structures (oil rigs, etc). She also stated that given the potential damage a nuclear meltdown could cause to a city it isn't the safest, even though she admitted that most people imagine a meltdown worst than it actually is.
Counter?
DeletedUser40768
Guest
lol I was actually going to say this before but was convinced that everyone already considered that
DeletedUser
Guest
lol I was actually going to say this before but was convinced that everyone already considered that
Sure, sure, way to contribute Joseph.
DeletedUser
Guest
My counter is that the number of deaths were relative to begin with, not absolute. So the number of people working doesn't really matter as the deaths were per trillion kWhr produced
And she's right a meltdown would be terrible but they happen extremely infrequently. The biggest danger of nuclear is probably not even the radioactivity, but the people working there. The meltdowns that have happened were caused by people not following regulations.
DeletedUser40768
Guest
Shadis well with all the expert debaters in the thread I was convinced anything I said would always be proven wrong. (and wow Skully did just a minute before I wrote this )
I would love to see this debate continued though. As I mentioned earlier though nuclear power would be too expensive for a stadium, and wouldn't be an ideal choice So yeah I am cool with a solar power stadium. Although how do you handle night games, which most games will be played during to try and accommodate for people's work schedule.
)I would love to see this debate continued though. As I mentioned earlier though nuclear power would be too expensive for a stadium, and wouldn't be an ideal choice
So yeah I am cool with a solar power stadium. Although how do you handle night games, which most games will be played during to try and accommodate for people's work schedule.