What alternate energy sources do you believe are viable replacements for fossile fuels? If your country uses alternative energy sources what does it use and how's it working out?
I favor nuclear power as one option, along the French model. I've heard the French nuclear power program is a model of safety and efficiently and the nuclear waste issue is a non issue as the French employ breeder reactor technology that minimizes nuclear waste and have a safe and effective nuclear waste treatment and disposal system.
America had 3MI, which was not serious. Russia had Chernobyl and one before that they don't talk about. Japan had fukishima. The French nuclear program has had...?
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK nuclear programme has had accidents at Windscale and Dounreay.
However to some degree these are in the past. The nuclear industry is a lot safer now.
The main problem is that nuclear energy is so expensive compared with sustainable (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.)
Hinkley Point as well.
NZ is largely run on alternate sources, mostly Geothermal and Hydro. The largest problem here is how limited the capacity is and how expensive power is because of its limitations. A large part of the entire nations power generation is taken up by a single aluminium smelter and whenever there is limited rainfall the cost for power from the hydro dams goes through the roof. However NZ is kind of unique because nuclear power is illegal here so that has not been a viable alternative (despite the fact that it would be both extremely economical as well as utterly viable for two plants to run the entire countries demand).
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK nuclear programme has had accidents at Windscale and Dounreay.
However to some degree these are in the past. The nuclear industry is a lot safer now.
The main problem is that nuclear energy is so expensive compared with sustainable (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.)
Hinkley Point as well.
NZ is largely run on alternate sources, mostly Geothermal and Hydro. The largest problem here is how limited the capacity is and how expensive power is because of its limitations. A large part of the entire nations power generation is taken up by a single aluminium smelter and whenever there is limited rainfall the cost for power from the hydro dams goes through the roof. However NZ is kind of unique because nuclear power is illegal here so that has not been a viable alternative (despite the fact that it would be both extremely economical as well as utterly viable for two plants to run the entire countries demand).
So, the peolle of NZ can't change their laws? I thought it was a democratic country.
Well democratic is such a loose term, but on this matter it is not likely to change. The NZ Green party accounts for roughly 15% of the vote and with an MMP system they tend to have a disproportionately large share in the formation of the Government. Any party looking at getting rid of that law would run into that lobby and without an argument that wasn't entirely fiscal they would get crucified.
That and there is really no need to change it, there is ample room to expand in other areas, especially wind and solar power. A large part of the nations reported use of fossil fuels come from the fact that the vast majority of our depend island territories rely upon diesel power as well as the fact that the coal and oil here are largely untapped. there has been vast controversy over the exploitation of the off shore oil deposits though they would actually make a massive difference to the nations wealth, though there is only one refinery.
We have a lot of wind/water power. I'd like to see us get to the point where we can run with just nuclear for a baseline but the bulk coming from renewables. With things like pumping water back up into dams it means we can store huge amounts of energy for when there's peak demands.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK nuclear programme ...
The main problem is that nuclear energy is so expensive compared with sustainable (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc.)
The UK nuclear power industry appears to be beholden to overheads imposed by the foreign-owned suppliers.
Or, so I am lead to believe from the media.
Some countries have lots of spare land, and get enough sunlight to make solar a good option. New transparent solar panels are being installed in some new buildings, so there is a lot of work going into this one.
Inshore tidal gets in the way, from what I gather from places I have seen it installed.
Wind power is unsightly, so probably has to pay off the neighbours.
Geothermal could be a thing anywhere, I suppose, but is costly to set up?
A lot of dams are getting knocked down, as being detrimental to the local area. Hydro is less of an option as it once was.
As said though, storage is an issue with renewables. Batteries are going into cars more than anything these days. Dams were always a go-to, and if demands increase, the problem gets worse.
Bran Dawri wrote: UK is actually building a couple of new nuclear plants, I think.
I'm actually all in favor of nuclear energy, at least in seismically stable areas.
From what I've heard at least one of the new stations is based on a design from France that has yet to actually work properly and one of the big issues is that building the power plant is likely to bankrumpt the power company doing it. I believe they've contracted in and started to get finance from China to try and offset this.
One issue with a lot of renewable energy sources is production. Solar, wind, tidal etc... can all be great energy sources, but they er erratic and not reliable. You can have months with hardly any wind and then get a huge month of powerful storms. The supply is thus not controllable, nor can you as easily scale it to when you require a higher volume for key events (the world cup half time power surge being a prime example when half the country goes to put the electric kettle on for the half time cup of tea).
Another issue I have with many renewables is the area that they take up in terms of land. They are big projects in order to generate the vast power quantities that modern societies require. Hydro electric dams are one of the biggest and require flooding of huge areas in order to build up their own excess of water to run turbines. Furthermore this can seriously impact land and farming downstream, the Nile delta is a prime example where power dams further upstream are now cutting off the huge silt supply that the delta and farming relied upon. The Nile isn't flooding any more; the soils are not getting that renewed influx of nutrients and material.
A further issue is cost and lifespan. Dams require expensive dredging otherwise they silt up; solar cells require replacing (often the cost to replace is about as much as you've earned in electricity generation). Plus you've got materials involved, solar cells in particular require some rather nasty chemicals to work and that's before we even get to batteries to store the energy if excess is produced at the "wrong time" so it can be held over until its required.
Now some of these can be mitigated by international treaties and a larger power grid, however it also brings a lot of complicated politics with it and still isnt really tackling the issue of bulk power production.
Personally nuclear seems to be about the best. It is capable of producing huge quantities of power on demand and can be scaled to meet the national needs. It is mostly clean production (far cleaner than gas or coal) and its land mass required for construction and running is not too obscene. Ergo its overall footprint is actually quite small compared to huge wind or solar farms. I'd also wager its infrastructure is more durable in general too.
It's main issues are safety and long term disposal of waste materials; whilst in poorer/more corrupt nations there's also questions regarding its management in terms of risk for dirty bombs and other nasty weapon production (which is not to say developed/stable nations can't do that too, but they are less likely to sell/lose/retail such materials).
I am all for green energy sources, but in today's ever more electronic world I just can't see that they can produce the volumes of energy on demand that society requires. It's a nice distraction and "green target", but ultimately I think its more political than anything else. Nuclear is the only energy production that I'm aware of that can produce what modern society and industry demands of it; whilst being cleaner than burning fossil fuels.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Germany have to step back from its "all renewable energy" promise/policy and have to accept nuclear or importing of electricity to meet demands?
Solar is the best. The energy literally is falling out of the sky - all we need to do is collect it and store it.
We are getting better at both every day. It's hard to imagine a future in which Solar isn't our main source of energy. Really - the tech is there already for a complete transition. The "cost" of things holds us back though. Eventually the world will realize things like "cost" are just methods of enslaving the human race so people with a lot of power can maintain it.
Xenomancers wrote: Solar is the best. The energy literally is falling out of the sky - all we need to do is collect it and store it.
We are getting better at both every day. It's hard to imagine a future in which Solar isn't our main source of energy. Really - the tech is there already for a complete transition. The "cost" of things holds us back though. Eventually the world will realize things like "cost" are just methods of enslaving the human race so people with a lot of power can maintain it.
Well there's cost, the resources required to cover huge areas in reflective glass; the issues of production being during the day and very little to nothing at night, yet society still requires huge volumes of energy at night*. Cost is a very real world issue, whilst the glass to make the front is cheap, there's a myriad of other resources that need to be found, extracted, processed and formed into internal components.
Solar could be the future, but currently the amount of solar energy it harvests is small compared to the total amount of solar energy hitting it. Solar needs huge leaps in performance before it can be a primary power source. Esp for nations further away from the equator.
*some factories might be closing up, but all those homes are turning on lights, cookers, heating, televisions; many industries also work shifts so many might not shut down and are still running powerful machinery
LordofHats wrote: We should do like Gundam OO, built giant orbital elevators, and yank all the power out of orbit. The bonus is we also get giant robots!
You don't even need an space elevator to do this. You can built a Satellite with huge Solar panels and transfer the energy collected via microwave or laser to the surface. 1 advantage to this is it could provide energy 24/7 - or at least a series of them could. These are really expensive projects though. Probably in the realm of 100's of billions of dollars.
No giant robots though so...not nearly as cool as what you were saying.
Green energy is a lot more capable than people give it credit for, and most of the "problems" are based on using the wrong type for the region.
The UK, for example, doesn't even slightly need nuclear - in Scotland, offshore wind and tidal turbines alone could more than meet the energy needs of the whole nation, with some left over to sell to the grid down south(if they ever get rid of the ludicrously punitive connection charges that were based on a national system of power generation dependent on coal-fired power plants but which is retained because it heavily benefits the south of England). In England & Wales you have less access to offshore wind and onshore wind is less reliable, but tidal turbines still work fine, wave energy is an option, and solar is actually reasonably viable.
Regardless of what methods, all the nonsense about peak demand and variable generation goes away when you build sufficient pumped-hydro storage capacity.
A renewables-focused energy strategy would also benefit from tax incentives(for business) and grants(for private individuals) intended to incentivise micro-generation - the less energy each household is pulling down from the grid, the easier it is for a renewables-only grid to function.
In general I have no issue with nuclear, there are places in the world where an all-renewables strategy just isn't viable for a developed country and until fusion is viable it's nuclear or nothing, but there are a lot fewer such places than most people assume/the nuclear industry asserts there are.
Xenomancers wrote: Solar is the best. The energy literally is falling out of the sky - all we need to do is collect it and store it.
We are getting better at both every day. It's hard to imagine a future in which Solar isn't our main source of energy. Really - the tech is there already for a complete transition. The "cost" of things holds us back though. Eventually the world will realize things like "cost" are just methods of enslaving the human race so people with a lot of power can maintain it.
Well there's cost, the resources required to cover huge areas in reflective glass; the issues of production being during the day and very little to nothing at night, yet society still requires huge volumes of energy at night*. Cost is a very real world issue, whilst the glass to make the front is cheap, there's a myriad of other resources that need to be found, extracted, processed and formed into internal components.
Solar could be the future, but currently the amount of solar energy it harvests is small compared to the total amount of solar energy hitting it. Solar needs huge leaps in performance before it can be a primary power source. Esp for nations further away from the equator.
*some factories might be closing up, but all those homes are turning on lights, cookers, heating, televisions; many industries also work shifts so many might not shut down and are still running powerful machinery
In terms of what a coal plant can produce compared to what a solar plant can produce. We really aren't talking about a huge discrepancy.
A common coal plant produces 600 MW compared to a modern solar plant which produces 400MW including the required energy storage in order to operate over night and such. We are already there. We already have affordable electric cars coming out from tesla (and thats just the first generation) who knows where those models will be in 10 years. Cost annalisis is an absolute joke. With the amount of money spent on mining and transporting coal (500 billion per year) compared to the 0$ required to mine sunlight it's pretty obvious which is going to have better cost effectiveness in the long run. Both have similar maintenance cost to function. It's almost like we are letting 5 year olds make these decisions today.
It's pretty obvious why we aren't transitioning. It's not even worth mentioning at this point.
There are various ways of storing spare electricity produced by renewable sources during peak production.
I think there is a lot of scope in micro-generation. This is the idea of everyone putting some solar panels and a windmill on top of their house, and a big battery in their attic.
Realistically the only solution is all the solutions, even coal likely having a place (though nuclear could make up the gap). Renewable sources aren't reliable enough to be the only source (and battery tech is no where near capable of powering a city), but they're good enough to get the job done as long as you have a coal/nuclear backup to fill in the gaps in demand.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are various ways of storing spare electricity produced by renewable sources during peak production.
I think there is a lot of scope in micro-generation. This is the idea of everyone putting some solar panels and a windmill on top of their house, and a big battery in their attic.
I figure the big issue will be cost and efficiency. Battery technology iirc hasn't particularly gone anywhere though i hear things about graphine so hopefully something cool will come up.
and solar panels are still pretty inefficient.
I recently saw some cool stuff on youtube about turning poop into fuel. using special purple bacteria to make and bottle up methane and or hydrogen gas.
I favor nuclear power as one option, along the French model. I've heard the French nuclear power program is a model of safety and efficiently and the nuclear waste issue is a non issue as the French employ breeder reactor technology that minimizes nuclear waste and have a safe and effective nuclear waste treatment and disposal system.
Breeder reactors still produce radioactive waste. All they do is generate more fuel so that fuel source lasts longer. You still have to separate the radioactive chemicals at specialist sites to reprocess into new fuel. The fabric of some parts of the facilities themselves can become radioactive. Decommissioning of the plants themselves produces low grade radioactive waste. The problem with this waste is that it can last thousands of years. Hence we not only have to secure it for today but also the tens to hundreds of generations later. One of the discussions is how we make sure that a radioactive waste site isn't accidently stumbled upon by future relatives. It would be akin to them trying to decipher the curse on Egyptian mummies.
Well there's cost, the resources required to cover huge areas in reflective glass; the issues of production being during the day and very little to nothing at night, yet society still requires huge volumes of energy at night*. Cost is a very real world issue, whilst the glass to make the front is cheap, there's a myriad of other resources that need to be found, extracted, processed and formed into internal components.
We have huge areas of space already. If every roof was plastered with solar panels then that would contribute a significant fraction of our energy needs, especially if combined with solid state battery stores. In reality a combination of renewables can solves almost all of our energy needs. Wind, tidal, wave, solar and geothermal located appropriated and combined with residents generating their own local sources of energy (e.g. ground source heat pumps, roof solar panels) would be able to supply our needs. The issue though it needs international (or in the US interstate) co-operation so that you can connect all the sources together. For example in the EU the UK could generate significant amounts of wind, tidal and wave energy plus some geothermal in Scotland. Iceland, France, Italy can generate geothermal energy solar and wind. Spain, eastern European states wind and solar and so forth.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned fusion. From what I was reading the other day it has finally made the jump from being a physics challenge to being an engineering challenge. Some people believe we are now 5-10 years away from a viable commercial fusion reactor, rather than 30.
With regards to fission, when people are talking about the dangers, coal has killed far more people in power plant accidents and released far more radioactive material than all of the nuclear power plants, it just does it in a far less visible way.
Steve steveson wrote: I can’t believe no one has mentioned fusion. From what I was reading the other day it has finally made the jump from being a physics challenge to being an engineering challenge. Some people believe we are now 5-10 years away from a viable commercial fusion reactor, rather than 30.
With regards to fission, when people are talking about the dangers, coal has killed far more people in power plant accidents and released far more radioactive material than all of the nuclear power plants, it just does it in a far less visible way.
Now this guy is well informed! Coal produces a lot of harmful side effects, properly run nuclear power doesn't.
Fusion is that clean, safe(?), harmless perfect energy source that is set to save the worlds energy crisis. So I think its out of the lime light mostly because they've yet to get it to work largescale. So the average person overlooks it. Don't forget they've been talking about working fusion cars and fusion reactors and such for years (I seem to recall Top Gear tested at least one or two fusion powered cars).
It's a very interesting fuel and if it works and can be made at a commercial large scale level then it could be a huge saving grace for humanity in terms of our fuel and energy requirements. It would certainly make things like all electric cars and a significant reductiion in fossil fuels a closer reality.
The main issue with trying to put a timescale on fusion as a power source is that, for about 60 years, the amount of time it was believed we'd need to wait has been more or less constant. "It's only X years away" has been a phrase used many times over those interveneing years, every time with X being more or less the same number.
Theoretically cutting it down to 5-10 I'd wager still means that, in twenty years time, it'll only be 5-10 years away!
My opinion is that nuclear power is the only realistic way. Nuclear fusion is pretty much the ultimate energy source, being clean, inexhaustible, highly efficient and without some of the nasty potential side-effects of nuclear fission. However, with our current technology and understanding generating power from fusion still remains outside of our reach. Lots of people and countries are working hard at making generating power from fusion possible. They are advancing at a slow but steady pace, so will get to fusion eventually. Until that time however, nuclear fission remains the best alternative. Like fusion, it is clean and highly efficient in generating power. Wind and sun energy will never be able to power the Earth, not even if we cram every single square meter of the Earth's surface full of solar panels. Hydroelectricity and geothermal energy are only possible in a few locations. Nuclear fission is the only clean energy that can actually realistically replace fossil fuels. Of course, nuclear fission does have drawbacks. It generates a small amount of radioactive waste (but the amount is low enough that storage is never going to become an issue) and the process is rather volatile which can result in a meltdown in case the power plant fails. However, modern power plants are incredibly safe (by comparison, gas and oil plants explode a lot more often) and even in extremely rare cases of major failure (only 2 since the history of nuclear energy) damage usually remains limited. Even in the Chernobyl disaster there were only 31 deaths, which given the scale of that disaster is pretty amazing. Radiation is often hyped up to be super dangerous and a lot of people have an irrational fear of it. But compared to oil, radiation is actually much less dangerous.
Techpriestsupport wrote: The chinese claim to be getting v=very close to fusion power, but in all honeslty I cannot hope that that country succeeds in making it a reality.
The research into fusion energy is pretty much a multinational project. The US, Russia, China and France are the biggest contributors, but they and a lot of other countries are all working together. If nuclear fusion becomes a reality it will have been the world as a whole who made it possible, not just a single country.
Heck the area around Chernobyl is now quite the wildlife refuge to the abandonment of humans from the area. Plus whilst it was a major disaster, my understanding is that they were experimenting with the process and core at the time rather than running it "as normal". So whilst it was a huge disaster, it wasn't the result of the plants normal energy production method.
The other big disaster I believe is the reactors in Japan following the Tsunami; and one interesting thing I've read is that those plants were older and scheduled for decommission and that newer designs were far more reinforced against a potential disaster of that scale. OF course if we improve international relations and energy sharing/trading we could be very smart and build more generators in areas of low risk. One bonus nuclear (fission or fusion) has is that its not as geographically tied down as many of the renewable are. We can ship nuclear material around the world for low cost; whilst wind, sun and others are things we can't just move around to where we want it.
Also I'd rather China DID get fission! Their fossil fuel burning is insane (as is most of their industry and development). If they had access to a clean fuel source that could shut down huge amounts of their pollution levels it would be fantastic not just for them, but for global pollution levels. Of course they also need to step up their game in terms of factory emissions and the like. Heck even waste from their own sea farming practices caused huge tides of seaweed to swamp the sea shores near the olympic games.
The wikipedia article goes into more detail, but they appear to be vastly safer and potentially more economical than traditional fission reactor designs.
No super high pressure coolants or explosive gasses involved, so they can't blow up.
The waste products have a half life of around 30 years, meaning they're down to background levels of radiation after about 300 years. Which is a fair bit better than waste products from traditional reactors, such as Pu-239, which has a half life of 24000 years.
The waste products are also much less suitable for use in weapons. Which is possibly one of the reasons why research into this type of reactor was first dropped back in the 70s. Back then it was seen as a disadvantage.
It does sound like there are still a fair few research and engineering challenges to overcome with this design. But it also sounds like something a little closer to our immediate reach than fusion.
Wildlife and plants in parts of Sweden still occasionally, but not rarely, have unsafe levels of caesium-137 (source in Swedish), despite caesium-137 having a 30-year half-life, due to Chernobyl. The idea that wildlife "thriving" in Chernobyl means radiation isn't so bad is naïve as gak. Hiroshima has among the highest incidents of liver cancer in the world, with heightened risk of a bunch of other cancers as well.
LunarSol wrote: Realistically the only solution is all the solutions, even coal likely having a place (though nuclear could make up the gap). Renewable sources aren't reliable enough to be the only source (and battery tech is no where near capable of powering a city), but they're good enough to get the job done as long as you have a coal/nuclear backup to fill in the gaps in demand.
Pumped. Hydro. Storage.
Battery tech doesn't need to be capable of powering a city, because nobody is suggesting battery tech be used outside of micro-generation for individual buildings/houses. For full scale power generation, you construct artificial, self-contained dams with two reservoirs - when renewables are over-producing(during the day for solar, during flood & ebb for tidal, strongest weather patterns for offshore wind etc), you run the pumps and draw the water out of the lower reservoir to fill the top one, when renewables are under-producing and the grid draw is higher you allow the water to sluice through the dam and run the hydro turbines to put the stored energy into the grid.
It's not 100% efficient, but it's more efficient than batteries - even hypothetical designs - and can scale up to pretty much any level you need it to.
Nuclear is only actually required in a handful of places if we actually built the infrastructure to support a renewables-focused energy strategy, and that would cost a fair whack less than building new nuclear capacity(unfortunately we're not longer allowed to discuss why that's not actually enough to get it done).
The cost of a nuclear plant is not only the chance of it going kablooie. It's the cost of construction, the eventual cost of deconstruction and long term waste storage, and also the cost of long-distance transmission lines.
What I mean by "cost" is not simply the monetary value, it is also the environmental and social impacts. These have to be offset against changing requirements for energy. As heavy industry declines, the need for major power plants is reduced and a lot more towns will be able to supply a lot of their needs by local micro-generation.
Kilkrazy wrote: The cost of a nuclear plant is not only the chance of it going kablooie. It's the cost of construction, the eventual cost of deconstruction and long term waste storage, and also the cost of long-distance transmission lines.
What I mean by "cost" is not simply the monetary value, it is also the environmental and social impacts. These have to be offset against changing requirements for energy. As heavy industry declines, the need for major power plants is reduced and a lot more towns will be able to supply a lot of their needs by local micro-generation.
Indeed. The problem with this is there are a lot of obstacles to this kind of thing right now. For one, without a big, national programme of investment to take advantage of economies of scale, microgeneration can often be prohibitively expensive. It also often falls foul of local planning laws and NIMBY campaigners - if your building is listed or located in a "conservation area" then good luck getting permission to install solar panels or a wind turbine. Another problem is that some of the most efficient concepts for local renewables are less "micro" and more "mini" - solar-fuelled district heating, for example - which run into problems in an era when local government funding is often being cut. And of course, you have to deal with lobbying efforts by the existing energy industry, who don't take kindly to the government funding or incentivising local generation schemes that can provide people with heat & energy for a fraction of the cost big companies demand for grid electricity and piped gas.
Techpriestsupport wrote: The chinese claim to be getting v=very close to fusion power, but in all honeslty I cannot hope that that country succeeds in making it a reality.
It's still a long way off (assuming no sudden unseen break through). The achievement is impressive but it was only for a several seconds. A sustainable long term output that produces more energy than is put in we are still waiting for (ITER might achieve this). After that we then have to start considering how commercially they can be designed to last tens of years. There is still a long way to go. Yes a milestone has been reached which is a good thing but the commercially viable tech is still at least 20 years away (if not more).
You bring up another obstacle of course, it has to be "commercially viable", not just viable. Imagine how much quicker we could progress without having to tax everything's efficiency by 5-10% to allow for profit extraction.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wildlife and plants in parts of Sweden still occasionally, but not rarely, have unsafe levels of caesium-137 (source in Swedish), despite caesium-137 having a 30-year half-life, due to Chernobyl. The idea that wildlife "thriving" in Chernobyl means radiation isn't so bad is naïve as gak. Hiroshima has among the highest incidents of liver cancer in the world, with heightened risk of a bunch of other cancers as well.
I don't know. There are people living virtually right next to the plant, even in the exclusion zone, who grow and eat their own vegetables, keep animals, and they are perfectly fine. Many of them are 70 or 80 years old without ever having had cancer or anything. Again, people often overreact. The standards of what constitutes an "unsafe" level are just set very low. So low, that it is unlikely to have much effect on you. Well, it will give you a very slightly higher risk of developing cancer which is why they mark it as "unsafe", no matter the fact that you already have a high risk of developing cancer in the first place (cancer being as common as it is). Eating processed meat, food from a microwave, living near an oil or gas plant and many other things also give you a higher risk of developing cancer. People who work in the petroleum industry have a higher risk of cancer than people working in a nuclear power plant. Yet people aren't nearly as scared of processed meat or petroleum as they are of radiation, despite radiation being much rarer (or perhaps because of that. People are often irrationally afraid of something they don't understand well). The article mentions that the degree of radiation people get from Cesium-137 in food is less than the cosmic background radiation. They also estimate that 300 people in total in Sweden will die from cancer as a result of Chernobyl-related radiation, while noting that over 20,000 people in Sweden die from cancer each year from other sources. In other words, the amount of people that developed cancer as result of Chernobyl in Sweden is negligible. And again, this is the biggest nuclear reactor accident in history, the likes of which simply couldn't happen anymore with modern reactors. Accidents with nuclear reactors are extremely rare. Serious accidents are even more extremely rare. And even in the only two cases where a serious accident occured (both of which were because of extraordinary circumstances and would not have happened under normal operating conditions) the damage was rather limited. The Exxon Valdez oil spill killed more people through cancer than the Chernobyl meltdown did. The benzene that is in petroleum products is much more carcinogenic than caesium.
Of course, I am not saying that nuclear radiation isn't dangerous. High enough doses of radiation are downright lethal. But the risk of ever being exposed to high doses of radiation is negligible. What I am saying is that the risks of nuclear radiation are often overblown. It is often singled out as a danger because people think radiation is scary, without realising there are much more dangerous risks to our health that we do not find nearly as scary.
The majority of the world's modern nuclear power plants are built by Russians: https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/08/02/the-world-relies-on-russia-to-build-its-nuclear-power-plants Russia is probably the country with the biggest expertise in building nuclear power plants (or in nuclear anything). The Chernobyl disaster happened not because the plant was faulty in any way, it was because the Soviet government was using it to run a irresponsible military experiment which included deliberately turning off all of the the plant's safety features. Other nuclear accidents in Russia happened mostly during the 1990's and early 2000's when Russia was still reeling from the collapse of the Soviet Union and nuclear infrastructure and things like ships and submarines could not be maintained well.
The RBMK reactor did have a couple of design features that contributed to the explosion, and that don't generally appear in other designs; firstly, overheating and boiling of the coolant water causes the reaction rate to increase rather than decrease, and the control rods (to shut down the reaction) had graphite tips, which caused the reaction rate to initially increase as the rods were inserted. Still, neither or both of those things would have happened without the human error involved.
I've read that small reactors, such as are used in submarines, can circulate enough coolant by convection to be safe from meltdown without the need for mechanical circulation by pumping.
Another option for solar energy is to use reflected sunlight to heat water for a furnace or a steam turbine. That just needs mirrors, no photovoltaic cells.
You know I hear people talking about economic viability, and I just can't hep thinking that fossil fuel use is helping affect climate change which is going to cost us so much it's beyond calculation, and I wonder what these people think Mooey is going to be worth is we collapse the whole damn ecosystem to save a few percent of financial expenses.
There was an article last week, probably on the BBC, about how several private companies believe they'll have a working, commercially viable, fusion reactor within 5 years.
Here in Victoria the state government has put significant investment into solar with battery storage, and is offering subsidies for people to add solar to their house (whether owned or rented).
Kilkrazy wrote: I've read that small reactors, such as are used in submarines, can circulate enough coolant by convection to be safe from meltdown without the need for mechanical circulation by pumping.
Some of them are designed this way, yes. Specifically, the ones in the Ohio class submarines. This was done less as a safety feature than as a way to eliminate the noise of the pumps, to make the Ohios harder to hear with passive sonar.
This seems to put an upper limit on power generation, which limited the top speed of the Ohios to well below that of the smaller fast-attack submarines with pumps for high-power operation.
A massive kilometer-high tower and 20 square kilometer greenhouse just to produce a measly 100 MW? No thank you, that has got to be one of the least efficient ways to generate energy ever tested (by contrast, a single nuclear power plant generates on average between 500-1300 MW, a typical fossil fuel plant between 250-500 MW). Maybe a good idea if you essentially live in a desert and have loads of empty space and relatively low power needs.
Nuclear power is a necessity. No other option really has the potential for long term solutions. Solar and Wind power are too geographically dependent on ideal locations, while nuclear power can be built anywhere with access to water. Its easier to artificially pump the water to the reactor than it is to alter the landscape so its ideal for wind or solar.
Given that nuclear power is extremely safe, has very high energy output, and we have enough fuel for even our primitive fission plants to run for 10s of thousands of years, its a no brainer unless you have fallen for the "nuclear is evil and dangerous" lies. Plenty of time to develop an alternative energy source.
In terms of space exploration, Nuclear power also has the benefit of it being more likely that a new colony could find fuel to sustain the reactor. A colony could be on a planet that has poor visibility for solar panels or no good places to put wind turbines, but the chances of finding radioactive elements and water will be good on planets we decide to colonize. We'd never colonize some place that didn't have at least some water. Solar would still have a place as a energy source that could be set up quickly, but it would not be capable of providing large scale power generation without favorable conditions that couldn't be guaranteed.
Nuke is probably the most efficient, yet it has its obvious downsides. I'm a huge fan of hydroelectric power. With all the tributaries spiderwebbing the world, putting several waterwheels along them seems like a viable alternative. I'd also combine wind and solar as it seems neither can produce enough power to suit typical human needs by itself, ESPECIALLY in an urban environment.
Of course uranium supplies won’t even last 100 years, and if we upscale the number of plants it will decrease quite rapidly from that . One solution is reprocessing the nuclear waste to produce plutonium which is highly efficient by comparison and would extend the lifetime of the original fuel into hundreds or thousands of years. However, I recall this is largely prevented by the nuclear proliferation treaty. And clearly we don’t want to encourage legitimate reasons for stockpiling plutonium to use ‘for energy’ when there are so many unstable/untrustworthy countries, terror groups and regimes common sense says shouldn’t be allowed near the stuff.
I'd read an article several, several years back detailing that the tech is already available, but lobby groups have halted, a 3 stage process of reactors that would largely reduce, nearly to the point of eliminating waste. . . Now, I'm no engineer, but the jist of this ages old article that stuck with me, was that current reactors today produce some train load of waste per year. . . What the 2nd "stage" reactor would do, was create power while taking the waste from 1, and its by-product was produced at a rate of about one semi-truck trailer per year, and "stage" 3 took that waste, did its magic and produced a single 55-gallon drum of waste per year, which strikes me as much more manageable.
I think even without considering the safety concerns and costs you mentioned, other articles that I'e read on the nuke power industry is that a HUGE cost gets sunk in basically fighting a losing battle against "green" activists/lobbyist groups.
Just Tony wrote:Nuke is probably the most efficient, yet it has its obvious downsides. I'm a huge fan of hydroelectric power. With all the tributaries spiderwebbing the world, putting several waterwheels along them seems like a viable alternative. I'd also combine wind and solar as it seems neither can produce enough power to suit typical human needs by itself, ESPECIALLY in an urban environment.
One of the problems with hydropower is that, with our current system of damming rivers/waterways, is that we're damn near tapped out in terms of where dams can be built, as they have a long list of actual requirements (and that's before we even begin to consider more recent developments in terms of wildlife impacts). . . .
That said, I do think that submerged "floating" turbines on buoy systems may be a way to mitigate those issues. . . There's been talk around Washington state area of how to make the tidal flows within the relative safety of Puget sound produce usable power for consumers. . . The biggest hold up has, and remains the danger to wildlife (ie, in simulations salmon cannot see the spinning blades of the submerged turbines, and get turned into sushi because they swim through it).
Though, I must say I am disappointed. . . 2 pages in and no one has mentioned turning humans into batteries and controlling these human-duracells with a computer generated environment
Well, I was wondering if we could offer free beans and beer to certain people in certain parts of america in exchange for inserting gas collector tubes in their colons to collect farts to urn for power....
I'd read an article several, several years back detailing that the tech is already available, but lobby groups have halted, a 3 stage process of reactors that would largely reduce, nearly to the point of eliminating waste. . . Now, I'm no engineer, but the jist of this ages old article that stuck with me, was that current reactors today produce some train load of waste per year. . . What the 2nd "stage" reactor would do, was create power while taking the waste from 1, and its by-product was produced at a rate of about one semi-truck trailer per year, and "stage" 3 took that waste, did its magic and produced a single 55-gallon drum of waste per year, which strikes me as much more manageable.
I think even without considering the safety concerns and costs you mentioned, other articles that I'e read on the nuke power industry is that a HUGE cost gets sunk in basically fighting a losing battle against "green" activists/lobbyist groups.
Just Tony wrote:Nuke is probably the most efficient, yet it has its obvious downsides. I'm a huge fan of hydroelectric power. With all the tributaries spiderwebbing the world, putting several waterwheels along them seems like a viable alternative. I'd also combine wind and solar as it seems neither can produce enough power to suit typical human needs by itself, ESPECIALLY in an urban environment.
One of the problems with hydropower is that, with our current system of damming rivers/waterways, is that we're damn near tapped out in terms of where dams can be built, as they have a long list of actual requirements (and that's before we even begin to consider more recent developments in terms of wildlife impacts). . . .
That said, I do think that submerged "floating" turbines on buoy systems may be a way to mitigate those issues. . . There's been talk around Washington state area of how to make the tidal flows within the relative safety of Puget sound produce usable power for consumers. . . The biggest hold up has, and remains the danger to wildlife (ie, in simulations salmon cannot see the spinning blades of the submerged turbines, and get turned into sushi because they swim through it).
Though, I must say I am disappointed. . . 2 pages in and no one has mentioned turning humans into batteries and controlling these human-duracells with a computer generated environment
You wouldn't even need dams. Seriously a simple water wheel will generate power. Stream flows under it, spinning the wheel. If you need multiple wheels, no problem. Combine it with wind and solar. Problem solved.
And yes, I'm aware of our concern for the adorable fishies. It's the reason California is next to an OCEAN yet can't seem to desalinate seawater (an inexpensive process) to solve both its supply AND drought issues.
Just Tony wrote: You wouldn't even need dams. Seriously a simple water wheel will generate power. Stream flows under it, spinning the wheel. If you need multiple wheels, no problem. Combine it with wind and solar. Problem solved.
It will generate power, yes, but how much and with what efficiency? How much infrastructure will be required to put that water wheel onto the grid, and how much will it cost relative to the power provided? The answers here are not favorable outside of specific geographical areas, the same ones that are useful for hydroelectric dams.
Once again, read combined with wind and solar. The problem is that every renewable resource is inefficient aside from dams. The windmill farm required to generate enough power to keep a city like LA lit would take up FAR too much real estate.
Besides, there are ways to create water flow for dynamos. Put a pipe in a lake with the dynamo's water wheels in the pipe. Have a redirect that discharges the water back into the lake. Depending on the pathway and how many dynamos you can put along the pathway it could be fairly lucrative. It just takes looking at it in ways other than "this one way is the only way to make it work". If an old flour mill can be converted over to a functioning power plant based on that one water wheel turning a single dynamo and can power a small town, it's folly to think it won't work on the same principle elsewhere. Look at the Mississippi River. That flows MORE than fast enough to facilitate hydro power.
It's unrealistic to say that renewable can't make a realistic contribution. In the UK, renewables already account for 20% of our power.
Obviously there's a big gap between 20% and 100%, so I think the problem is whether renewables will top out at 40% or 60% or whatever, and what other generation technology should fill the gap.
The other side of the equation is reducing energy use. The UK has reduced per capita consumption by things like LED lighting.
Aye but have a look at the Amazon and the effects that dams and hydro power have had. There are multiple species, including the river dolphins that are or are so near its basically going to happen, extinct because of hydropower. If its not intakes sucking them in its the barriers blocking migration and territories leading to fractured populations and broken food chains (esp when those chains vary through the year.
Scale is indeed the issue with most renewables, they require huge areas to function and as one of their prime considerations for use is conversation, one has to balance the clean air angle with the fact that they take up vast chunks of land and disrupt pathways and connections and thus cause direct harm to the wildlife. Heck I seem to recall of wind turbines built in wind channels right in the path of migratory butterflies. Remember blades don't have to hit you, the churning up of the air by the passing blades can be just as deadly. Much like how in a car you might not hit a low flying bird as it passes by/over; but the wind moving over the car can catch them, throwing them against ground/other vehicles/signs or trees on the edges of the road.
On reduced use - LED lighting, better building design and materials (insulation to keep heat out in summer and warm in in winter). Heck From what I gather the USA could make a vast saving in heat if they could ween themselves off in-door air-conditioning. Heck consider retail outlets on the highstreet today whcih have heat blazing down in huge amounts. I actually find they run heat so hot that hte staff are in full summer heatwave uniform, whist if you come in from outside you get so hot in even light winter clothing that I find I end up leaving stores faster to get back to a more sane temperature. And you've got the whole highstreet doing this (well at least the big stores that have survived)
Big hydro dams have been deprecated for the reasons you mention, and others. Unfortunately, a lot of big schemes are going ahead anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In more related news, the BBC reports on a looming energy crisis for the small Channel Island of Sark...
The BBC wrote:Lights out on one island?
What's happening?
All the electricity on one British island could be turned off at the end of the week.
Why does it matter?
About 500 people live on the island of Sark in the English Channel, and one official there says they will all have to adopt "a bit of a wartime mentality" from this week.
On Friday, the island's electricity provider will withdraw its services. This is because it was ordered to reduce its prices earlier this year, a situation it says has caused it to lose a significant amount of money.
There was some concern all the residents may be forced to evacuate, but that looks unlikely to happen now. But they are having to find whatever alternative they can to keep the lights on - including an emergency generator and a plan to share whatever renewable energy is created on the island.
Just Tony wrote: Nuke is probably the most efficient, yet it has its obvious downsides. I'm a huge fan of hydroelectric power. With all the tributaries spiderwebbing the world, putting several waterwheels along them seems like a viable alternative. I'd also combine wind and solar as it seems neither can produce enough power to suit typical human needs by itself, ESPECIALLY in an urban environment.
Water wheels provide so little energy that they are barely noticeable. You'd need a massive wheel or an incredibly fast streaming river to be able to have it generate enough power to justify its costs. And rivers deep enough for such a massive wheel are close to non-existent while rivers that stream fast enough are also pretty rare.
Wind and solar combined can't produce anywhere near enough energy to power a city, unless you literally jam an entire area full of wind turbines and solar panels, which will destroy the local flora and fauna (so much for "green" energy). Wind and solar energy are only serious options for wealthy areas that have lots of flat, empty space such as deserts (and even then the ecological impact is a big problem). In densely populated or poor areas it just won't be possible. That is not to say wind and especially solar energy are useless, it can make a valuable contribution, but it can't power the world. Which is why despite the ridiculous amounts of money that have been pumped into wind and solar energy over the past 20 years, we still rely almost entirely on fossil fuels.
Basically, we need a more efficient source of energy to do the bulk of power generation. Ideally, in the future we would have nuclear fusion plants (and until the time we can control fusion reactions nuclear fission plants) to generate the bulk of the world's energy with wind, solar and hydro energy playing a supporting role or even taking the lead in places where efficient power generation with these methods is possible. That way, our fuel supply would be virtually infinite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: B
In more related news, the BBC reports on a looming energy crisis for the small Channel Island of Sark...
The BBC wrote:Lights out on one island?
What's happening?
All the electricity on one British island could be turned off at the end of the week.
Why does it matter?
About 500 people live on the island of Sark in the English Channel, and one official there says they will all have to adopt "a bit of a wartime mentality" from this week.
On Friday, the island's electricity provider will withdraw its services. This is because it was ordered to reduce its prices earlier this year, a situation it says has caused it to lose a significant amount of money.
There was some concern all the residents may be forced to evacuate, but that looks unlikely to happen now. But they are having to find whatever alternative they can to keep the lights on - including an emergency generator and a plan to share whatever renewable energy is created on the island.
And is why privatising essential services and utilities is one of the dumbest plans Humans have ever carried out in the modern age.
I thought utility companies, like electric and water, couldn't shut off services to customers in the UK. They can let a bill go unpaid for so long and then are required to install a meter into the house (which might or might not require a warrant to gain entry/access to a property to install said meter).
Also power suppliers are split, the companies most customers deal with are just a middle-man company who buy bulk power from the powerstations. So in theory if one company is cutting service because of reduced income the islanders can surely get another to replace them. Whilst it might be a little more complicated (ego the whole island is under one service) the whole infrastructure is there so I don't quite get why its become so complicated (unless the infrastructure is in die need of repair/upgrade)
Overread wrote: Heck From what I gather the USA could make a vast saving in heat if they could ween themselves off in-door air-conditioning.
Lol no. Clearly you haven't lived in the south if you think this is a possible thing. AC is not optional in many parts of the US, it's a requirement for being able to live here.
Overread wrote: Heck From what I gather the USA could make a vast saving in heat if they could ween themselves off in-door air-conditioning.
Lol no. Clearly you haven't lived in the south if you think this is a possible thing. AC is not optional in many parts of the US, it's a requirement for being able to live here.
Not true. People lived there before air-conditioning was ever invented. I used to live in a pretty warm place without air conditioning. I never missed it (I doubt I even knew such a thing existed). People live without air-conditioning in places that get far hotter than the southern US too. Hell, Humans evolved in a place that is warmer than the southern US, so I am more than 100% certain that you can live there perfectly fine without air-conditioning. Unlike heating in cold climates, air-conditioning in warm climates is a luxury, not a necessity, and people that have never had it won't even miss it.
That said, I doubt household air-conditioning is having a massive impact on energy usage. Usually it is stuff like industrial plants, street lights etc. Just looking at the statistics for Louisiana (which I think is one of the warmest US states?), all households in total use up only 7.5% of the state's energy consumption. So for air-conditioning you are likely looking at something that is much less than 1% of the state's energy consumption for what is a very intrusive measure that has a big impact on people's lives and freedoms. In other words, turning off air-conditioning is just not worth it. If you want to look for energy savings you need to look at the industry and transport sectors.
France has lost up to 10,000 in a single heat wave- in Paris. A city that has an average summer high of 77 in August. I live in Florida, which is far from the hottest part of the southern USA. Next Monday, December 3rd, is going to have a high of 89 degrees.
Without air conditioning we would have many more deaths from heat related causes, particularly in the hotter southwestern states.
Heat and cold are killers, but at the same time you can build better structures to help mitigate both those elements quite significantly before you start to use heat/cooling machines.
Sometimes a shift in social attitudes can also help. In many nations we doggedly stick to our 9-5 workday (more or less) even though the weather and seasons change quite considerably through the year. Shifting to a siesta pattern during hotter summer periods could be a big saver for many as opposed to working through the hottest part of the day
The BBC reports on the nuclear clean-up operation at Sellafield (what used to be called WIndscale, but they changed the name after an embarrassing incident in the 1950s.)
I can't dig any articles up at the moment, but there's the problem that climate change could mean some marginally-habitable areas (the desert areas of the USA and Mexico, the Middle East and others) could become too hot for human habitation without artificial cooling.
Overread wrote: Heat and cold are killers, but at the same time you can build better structures to help mitigate both those elements quite significantly before you start to use heat/cooling machines.
Sometimes a shift in social attitudes can also help. In many nations we doggedly stick to our 9-5 workday (more or less) even though the weather and seasons change quite considerably through the year. Shifting to a siesta pattern during hotter summer periods could be a big saver for many as opposed to working through the hottest part of the day
Yes.
People manage to survive and thrive in much more extreme conditions than SW USA.
The difficulty is trying to live a northern European life-style in a completely different sort of climate.
But let's not blame Americans. The Japanese have very hot, humid summers and use a lot of air conditioning. They also conform to the "anglo-saxon" pace of life.
There's lots that can be done to change this, for instance different type of architecture and changes around working time. Look at the Spanish siesta, for example. It's a way of avoiding the heat of the early afternoon. Spaniards tend to start work earlier, and stay up later in the evening when it's cool.
Overread wrote: I thought utility companies, like electric and water, couldn't shut off services to customers in the UK. They can let a bill go unpaid for so long and then are required to install a meter into the house (which might or might not require a warrant to gain entry/access to a property to install said meter).
Also power suppliers are split, the companies most customers deal with are just a middle-man company who buy bulk power from the powerstations. So in theory if one company is cutting service because of reduced income the islanders can surely get another to replace them. Whilst it might be a little more complicated (ego the whole island is under one service) the whole infrastructure is there so I don't quite get why its become so complicated (unless the infrastructure is in die need of repair/upgrade)
Overread wrote: Heck From what I gather the USA could make a vast saving in heat if they could ween themselves off in-door air-conditioning.
Lol no. Clearly you haven't lived in the south if you think this is a possible thing. AC is not optional in many parts of the US, it's a requirement for being able to live here.
Just Tony wrote: It's the reason California is next to an OCEAN yet can't seem to desalinate seawater (an inexpensive process) to solve both its supply AND drought issues.
Based on what I've read on the subject, desalination plants that can produce as much water as California needs are quite the opposite of what you're saying, ie, they're expensive as hell.
Additionally, I think if you booted the almond industry from California, you'd free up billions, if not trillions of gallons of water.
Neither of which things are energy sources related to this thread. Hydro dams have seen a sort of spike in costs, as, for instance the Bonneville dam that blocks part of the Columbia River, once science people recognized the actual damage (not even gonna touch your disparaging remark on fish) being done to the total environment, paid millions of dollars to engineer/re-engineer features in the dam system that would allow for proper salmon migration and thus attempt to correct some damage done to the environment.
The big companies are working on hydrogen powered cars. I think the main problem is how to deliver the fuel.
Large scale production and distribution of liquid hydrogen is more difficult than plumbing chargers for electric vehicles into the existing electricity infrastructure.
Don't hydrogen cars also tend to make quite a big explosion when they blow up? I seem to recall that being one earlier barrier for them being released was trying to develop them so that they were not as destructive (or at least had the potential to be).
Kilkrazy wrote: Big hydro dams have been deprecated for the reasons you mention, and others. Unfortunately, a lot of big schemes are going ahead anyway.
large dams are damaging to wetlands, fishing etc. The wells turbine used as part of sea/flood defences, is a far better bet.
Part of the problem with coal, was the way it was used. Ground into a fine powder, and mixed with water, then injected like fuel oil. Far better to have gasified it using waste water from the cooling towers. producing coke and methane gas. Using one to preheat the steam, and the other to super heat it
Just Tony wrote: And yes, I'm aware of our concern for the adorable fishies. It's the reason California is next to an OCEAN yet can't seem to desalinate seawater (an inexpensive process) to solve both its supply AND drought issues.
Desalinization is neither cheap nor easy. You have to pump water through a reverse osmosis filter... and you wind up only getting half the potable water out that you put in. The other half is now a brine that is twice as salty, and gets dumped back into the ocean. It's a pretty energy intensive process, the filters are not cheap when scaled up to an industrial scale, and the brine damages the local ecosystem - it turns out that saltwater-dwelling organisms can't cope with large increases in the salt content of the water.
Having said that, there are some desalinization plants in California. It's just not economical nor environmentally friendly to do it on the scale you're thinking.
Just Tony wrote: And yes, I'm aware of our concern for the adorable fishies. It's the reason California is next to an OCEAN yet can't seem to desalinate seawater (an inexpensive process) to solve both its supply AND drought issues.
Desalinization is neither cheap nor easy. You have to pump water through a reverse osmosis filter... and you wind up only getting half the potable water out that you put in. The other half is now a brine that is twice as salty, and gets dumped back into the ocean. It's a pretty energy intensive process, the filters are not cheap when scaled up to an industrial scale, and the brine damages the local ecosystem - it turns out that saltwater-dwelling organisms can't cope with large increases in the salt content of the water.
Having said that, there are some desalinization plants in California. It's just not economical nor environmentally friendly to do it on the scale you're thinking.
Indeed. The other option is to evaporate the seawater and condense the vapor back into fresh water, but that is even more energy intense.
Of course, if the electricity was generated with nuclear power that would be less of a concern, and attaching a desalination plant to a nuclear plant would actually be pretty symbiotic as the nuclear power heats water to turn the turbines, the steam could then be turned into potable water.
This would only leave the brine as an issue. And even it has uses. Or instead of dumping it into the ocean we could just evaporate all the water entirely and dump the salts on land somewhere they won't damage the ecosystem.
Desalination as practiced today has issues. Which could be solved if there wasn't such an undeserved stigma around nuclear power.
Overread wrote: Heck From what I gather the USA could make a vast saving in heat if they could ween themselves off in-door air-conditioning.
Lol no. Clearly you haven't lived in the south if you think this is a possible thing. AC is not optional in many parts of the US, it's a requirement for being able to live here.
Not true. People lived there before air-conditioning was ever invented. I used to live in a pretty warm place without air conditioning. I never missed it (I doubt I even knew such a thing existed). People live without air-conditioning in places that get far hotter than the southern US too. Hell, Humans evolved in a place that is warmer than the southern US, so I am more than 100% certain that you can live there perfectly fine without air-conditioning. Unlike heating in cold climates, air-conditioning in warm climates is a luxury, not a necessity, and people that have never had it won't even miss it.
That said, I doubt household air-conditioning is having a massive impact on energy usage. Usually it is stuff like industrial plants, street lights etc. Just looking at the statistics for Louisiana (which I think is one of the warmest US states?), all households in total use up only 7.5% of the state's energy consumption. So for air-conditioning you are likely looking at something that is much less than 1% of the state's energy consumption for what is a very intrusive measure that has a big impact on people's lives and freedoms. In other words, turning off air-conditioning is just not worth it. If you want to look for energy savings you need to look at the industry and transport sectors.
Sure, you can live without AC in the American south. That must be why every heat wave kills off a couple hundred old people and young children who can't afford air conditioning...
We get a bit sentimental about people like that dying off in job lots when the temperature hits 104 degrees F and over 80% humidity...
Sure, you can live without AC in the American south. That must be why every heat wave kills off a couple hundred old people and young children who can't afford air conditioning...
Not sure how it is in other Southern states, but when I bought a house in TN, I was exposed to their real estate laws and housing requirements. . . So, in TN for instance, a structure built after 1899 (or so. . . don't remember the exact year. . . generally this applies to "historic" properties moreso than standard old houses) is deemed unlivable and cannot be bought, sold, or lived in unless it has working A/C. As in, apparently inspectors will "condemn" your house if the AC doesn't work.
Yeah, boiling/condensing method would be ideal, and it wouldn't take much effort to refine the left over salt for use in those northern states that get frozen constantly. A few years ago Indiana had a salt shortage with ice storms a plenty. Cali could have had our money wholesale at that time.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. It’s a very dangerous fuel that can’t be stored efficiently in the vehicle’s fuel tanks. Every car is a Hindenburg disaster waiting to happen.
Hydrogen is safer than petrol. If released from the tank it quickly boils off and ascends to the upper atmosphere being much lighter than air. Petrol washes all over the floor, creating a fire hazard over a wide area.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah. It’s a very dangerous fuel that can’t be stored efficiently in the vehicle’s fuel tanks. Every car is a Hindenburg disaster waiting to happen.
Hydrogen is safer than petrol. If released from the tank it quickly boils off and ascends to the upper atmosphere being much lighter than air. Petrol washes all over the floor, creating a fire hazard over a wide area.
I wouldn't say it is safer. It has different dangers.
Hydrogen gas is about 20 times more explosive than gasoline / and about 10x more flammable. So accidents doing damage to a hydrogen fuel cell carry a serious risk of explosions. Explosions are not safe. Though explosions are less likely to cause fires like gasoline - it's a quick blow out. Both carry risks. Personally on roads with lots of people explosions are more dangerous IMO.
Anyone remember that last year Richard Hammond crashed a top end electric car? I recall from their show that the batteries in it kept burning for several days after the crash happened. Whilst it wasn't explosive it certainly meant that the car had to stay where it was under watch whilst the batteries burned out. So that could already be very disruptive if you've got an active burning car on a roadway that you can't easily move aside; and even if you do someone has to stay there to keep an eye on it and ensure that the fire doesn't spread. All the while its then a nice little "oh what's that" distraction to passers by (seriously some road snarl-ups are simply caused by people driving a little slower to see something)
There's also the issue of electrical discharge whilst one effects a rescue. I can't find it now but I recall reading on reddit, or another forum, about a firefighter talking about how there are discharge points on the car to connect so that you can reduce the chance; but also that the general methods of breaking the car open to get someone out have to be refined and changed to account for hte new dangers and risks.
This page from Washington State University has lots of examples of Hydrogen compared to petrol.
Leaks carry very little risk of explosion. I'd like to see the test done with direct high speed impact completely severing a fuel tank or compressing it to the point it explodes due to increased pressure. I agree it will be safer in a lot of cases. When a hydrogen tank has a serious rupture - the explosion is going to be phenomenal. That is my concern.
The web page basically says that safety has been a concern of scientists and engineers for decades, and many tests have been done, and the conclusion is that Hydrogen is not risk free, but it's safer than petrol.
It just seems to me that they aren't even addressing the key differences between the 2 fuels.
Gasoline is much less likely to ignite compared to hydrogen. In movies we see people flicking a match or a cigarette into a puddle of gasoline and BOOM! Except it really doesn't work like that. Gasoline is a lot less likely to catch than hydrogen. Car fires will be more common with hydrogen.
A lot of times accidents happen with cars crashing into houses/buildings/ect. That straight flame in above experiments link will set a house on fire in seconds - where a gasoline fuel might not have even lit up from a small ignition source.
I'm just saying - hydrogen is not "safer" than petrol. Both are dangerous.
Just Tony wrote: Yeah, boiling/condensing method would be ideal, and it wouldn't take much effort to refine the left over salt for use in those northern states that get frozen constantly. A few years ago Indiana had a salt shortage with ice storms a plenty. Cali could have had our money wholesale at that time.
Would be very useful though i just saw a scishow thing about salting roads and how its potentially not very good for the environment in the first place. especially after its washed away into all sorts of places.
also i figure since we have soo much sunlight couldn't we boil salt water in massive solar mirror towers, use the steam to generate energy then condense the steam into drinking water? im no engineer but that seems like a win win win. electricity salt and water.
I'm sure there's a way to incorporate all three into a system like that, but I'm suddenly reminded of a line from Commander Montgomery Scott: "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to block up the pipes."
It'd have to be simplified on all fronts to prevent any... colorful malfunctions, keep it easy to repair.
The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)
You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.
Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.
Saying hydrogen is too hard to deal with strikes me as a little incongruous with history. In the 30's airships used hydrogen quite regularly. Yes yes I know some of them exploded but the fact remains that 1930's technology could produce, store, transport and harness enough hydrogen to make massive airships work.
Our science and technology have advanced a tad since the 1930's, I must imagine the technology to produce and handle hydrogen must be at least a bit better now.
If we were to use hydrogen would there be accidents? Yes. Would there be injuries and even death occasionally? Yes.
Would it be on par with the accidents, injuries and deaths due to gasoline we have long had and accepted? I can't say.
On a related note, I can't say I can imagine some angry punk filling a bottle with hydrogen, sticking a rag in it, lighting it and starting a possibly devastating fire with it.
Hydrogen cars are not airships though. Cars are not driven by people who spend YEARS learning before they drive; nor are supported by a team of additional staff and a central control tower. Furthermore there are WAY more cars than there ever were airships.
So its not just a case that most drivers are not held to the same training standard; but that the roadways are far more choked with traffic. Heck many people will also drive in very bad weather even if they are not skillful drivers (because they gotta get to work/school/shops/etc...); whilst aircraft will remain grounded if the weather is too poor.
Vulcan wrote: The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)
You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.
Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.
The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.
Stoichiometric ratios are important yes. The issue is that what happens when a hydrogen fuel tank is ruptured in a car crash is pretty dang close to optimal. Its not like gasoline where an explosion after a crash, even a violent one, is unlikely. Sure, you will probably get ignition but it will not result in an explosion. Unlike hydrogen where ignition of any kind will almost certainly result in an explosion because it is so flammable that the ignition occurs fast enough to compress itself, on top of being carried in a tank that is itself highly pressurized. Gasoline on the other hand is kept uncompressed and burns far less vigorously. Its also in liquid form which is less flammable than its gaseous form. Hydrogen is stored in its most flammable state.
Its really a question of trade offs. A gasoline car will burn for some time but be slower to ignite and spread. A hydrogen car will explode almost immediately and much more violently but after that it'll be done.
This is why stunt explosions for movies are not representative of what happens when a car catches fire. Those are achieved with smaller explosives that turn large amounts of gasoline into an aerosol which then catches fire and creates an impressive fireball, and gasoline is used strictly because it burns slowly and gives more visual. Real explosives turn most of their fuel into a shockwave and not much in the way of any amount of fire, and are much deadlier for it.
Vulcan wrote: The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)
You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.
Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.
The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.
Stoichiometric ratios are important yes. The issue is that what happens when a hydrogen fuel tank is ruptured in a car crash is pretty dang close to optimal. Its not like gasoline where an explosion after a crash, even a violent one, is unlikely. Sure, you will probably get ignition but it will not result in an explosion. Unlike hydrogen where ignition of any kind will almost certainly result in an explosion because it is so flammable that the ignition occurs fast enough to compress itself, on top of being carried in a tank that is itself highly pressurized. Gasoline on the other hand is kept uncompressed and burns far less vigorously. Its also in liquid form which is less flammable than its gaseous form. Hydrogen is stored in its most flammable state.
Its really a question of trade offs. A gasoline car will burn for some time but be slower to ignite and spread. A hydrogen car will explode almost immediately and much more violently but after that it'll be done.
That is true.
If only there were some way for researchers to simulate such catastrophic failures and determine ways to prevent them. Some sort of... I don't know, crash test program for such research so we could find out just how dangerous hydrogen cars might - or might not - be.
I think the earlier point about how H2 is vastly harder to distribute than gasoline or electricity will be the nail in that coffin, not the danger of H2 exploding.
Well I am in Farming. Can Hydrogen power large tractors and pull massive plows thur hard soils. The problem with so many 'electric' cars and such is they forget that Trucks, massive excavators, tractors,& combines and even ware house vehicles need massive amounts of force. You will not get that with our current battery tech. Well perhaps if you want to multiply your food costs by 10's or more in costs.
Recently I traveled thru New England and saw all the old farmland filled with government subsidized solar panels.
Would those be there without taxpayer assistance?
What will we do when all the good land for food is taken up by renewables?
Overpopulation is driving the worlds energy needs. The West is stagnate or shrinking. The explosion of the next generations are coming from Asia, the middle east , Africa and latin America. THIS IS THE WORLDS TRUE elephant in the room.
Finding enough food and energy will be moot soon enough.
"overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.
Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.
Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.
Grey Templar wrote: "overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.
Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.
Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.
IIRC You could put the entire worlds population into the grand canyon easily.
also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out like 10 bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.
also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.
See that is a theory that I do not know if I ascribe to. THAT has happened with Western Culture and western values and western religions. To ASSUME that other cultures with other values and other religions will behave the same is asking for disappointment.
The worlds population has doubled almost every hundred years of late. With that last doubling taking only 70 or so years. Those proposing the theories you noted assume that the world will only have 11 billion by 2050. Ive seen the seminars and the theories. I think it works on paper but not in real life....like communism.
The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity..
Not according to hydrogen car manufacturers. Supposedly, because the hydrogen is stored under super-high pressure, when the tank is ruptured the hydrogen instantly dissipates into the air. Toyota claim their hydrogen cells are safer than gasoline tanks.
Grey Templar wrote: "overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.
Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.
Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.
IIRC You could put the entire worlds population into the grand canyon easily.
also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out like 10 bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.
You could fit everyone into Manhattan if you wanted to.
Population booms also don't immediately adjust to modernization and reduced infant mortality. It seems to take a generation or so, and usually some sort of catalyst which results in a die-off that gives everybody in general more resources(war/pandemic). Society is basically a generation behind in terms of adjusting the reproductive rate. Its why there is usually a big population boom every time there is an advancement in overall health/resources as everybody still maintains the old birth rates.
The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity..
Not according to hydrogen car manufacturers. Supposedly, because the hydrogen is stored under super-high pressure, when the tank is ruptured the hydrogen instantly dissipates into the air. Toyota claim their hydrogen cells are safer than gasoline tanks.
Bald faced lies most likely. Instantly mixing into the air is another way of saying it instantly mixes with the oxygen and thus reaches optimal flammability even faster! Higher pressure will increase the flammability/explosive qualities, not reduce them.
If you are lucky enough that the crash doesn't ignite the hydrogen immediately it will dissipate quickly, but colliding metal creates sparks in abundance...
If that's the case, then every manufacturer is telling the same lies. Everything I can find online says that the fuel cells are next to indestructible, and in te unlikely event that they are damaged they're designed to vent rather than explode. And crash tests so far have been postiive: https://insideevs.com/euro-ncap-5-stars-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car/
The second is that a great many peolle have a huge interest in maintaining the petrochemical system and are using tremendous amounts of money to oppose changing it.
also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.
See that is a theory that I do not know if I ascribe to. THAT has happened with Western Culture and western values and western religions. To ASSUME that other cultures with other values and other religions will behave the same is asking for disappointment.
Vulcan wrote: The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)
You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.
Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.
The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.
It's the pressure that's the danger, not ignition - damage to a pressurised hydrogen fuel tank is going to result in an explosion as the liquid hydrogen suddenly and rapidly boils. The same thing happens when a steam engine boiler ruptures or you poke a hole in a soft drinks bottle.
If hydrogen cannot be used as a direct combustion fuel safely couldlaefe amount of it be used to produce fuelcells to generate electricity to power vehicles?
speaking of vehicles I just recently noticed local school busses sporting "propane powered" stickers on their rears.
I think there are some experimental fuel cell powered cars already.
Propane fuelled vehicles have been a thing for at least 30 years. At this stage I'm not sure it can be classed as an alternative future energy. Quite a lot of petrol stations in Europe have LPG pumps for such vehicles.
I used to work at a company which supplied conversion kits to adapt petrol cars to run on LPG as an alternative or secondary fuel. In fact I once had the task of driving an LPG powered turbo-equipped ambulance from Aldbourne in Wiltshire to north London for a test. Which was fun, even though they didn't let me light up the roof.
Anyway, to get back to the topic, Propane isn't renewable but Methane could be if produced by bacterial fermentation of bilogical waste. (You know what I'm talking about.)
Techpriestsupport wrote: If hydrogen cannot be used as a direct combustion fuel safely couldlaefe amount of it be used to produce fuelcells to generate electricity to power vehicles?
speaking of vehicles I just recently noticed local school busses sporting "propane powered" stickers on their rears.
It can, and it is. Such vehicles still have a pressurised fuel tank to store the hydrogen in, though. Also, the pump nozzle is a locking bayonet connector (like a fire hose), so filling up is a little fiddlier.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there are some experimental fuel cell powered cars already.
Propane fuelled vehicles have been a thing for at least 30 years. At this stage I'm not sure it can be classed as an alternative future energy. Quite a lot of petrol stations in Europe have LPG pumps for such vehicles.
I used to work at a company which supplied conversion kits to adapt petrol cars to run on LPG as an alternative or secondary fuel. In fact I once had the task of driving an LPG powered turbo-equipped ambulance from Aldbourne in Wiltshire to north London for a test. Which was fun, even though they didn't let me light up the roof.
Anyway, to get back to the topic, Propane isn't renewable but Methane could be if produced by bacterial fermentation of bilogical waste. (You know what I'm talking about.)
Cow farts.
Honestly I think it is brilliant. Cow farts are a huge issue for green house emissions. Lets get real - people aren't going to stop eating beef. If someone where to invent a cheap cow fart collection system that could collect the methane and store it for fuel. It would make a huge difference up to 30% of global warming is due to methane - most comes from cows.
Lets discuss what would actually work best?
Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?
For the record, Caterpillar has been making LP powered large engines for a while now. I machine parts at the Lafayette plant specifically for the series of engines that they've adapted to run on gas.
I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource
I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource
Despite the numbers its sadly a protected species and can't be tampered with like that. Some group of judges got together and gave them rights, ideals, and all other manner of things that heavily restricts what can be done with them. About all you can legally do is take the bits of paper and common metals that they carry around with them, or plastic today. You can take that off them, though it can make them rather irate; but otherwise can't do a thing with them. More useless than a panda!
I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource
HAHA - well cows really put these apes to shame in the methane department.
Overread wrote: Some group of judges got together and gave them rights, ideals, and all other manner of things that heavily restricts what can be done with them.
Saying you can fit the world's population into those island or whatever is very meaningless. The fact you could stuff all humanity into a small percentage of earth's surface if you put them shoulder to shoulder nuts to butts ignores the fact each human needs so much fresh water, so much food, so much living space, etc. Plus wah human generates so much garbage that needs to GE disposed of, modern humans need transportation systems like roads, etc. Alzomth emodern western lifestyle need electricity for all.
Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?
While not cow farts, plenty of old landfills are getting tapped for methane these days. Hell, one out near me had pipes installed that weren't even tapped to prevent sinkholes. May as well make something out of old mistakes when we can.
Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?
While not cow farts, plenty of old landfills are getting tapped for methane these days. Hell, one out near me had pipes installed that weren't even tapped to prevent sinkholes. May as well make something out of old mistakes when we can.
IMO landfills are quite wasteful. 90% of that trash can be burned to produce energy (heck it's the perfect solution to cover solars down periods.) There isn't an electric dependent population that doesn't produce tons of trash daily.
Would those be there without taxpayer assistance?
What will we do when all the good land for food is taken up by renewables?
Why does it need to be good land for food? Deserts and rooftops pick up a lot of sunlight, I hear.
"Good land" gets taken up by non renewables too. Strip mining is devastating. Not to mention pilelines / oil-spills which create multi decade long ecological disasters. Really it's nonsense. A solar thermal plant might take up a little more land than your average coal plant. It's not also taking up tons of space all over the world to collect it's fuel. It fuel falls from the sky. It doesn't pollute the air quality around it ether (which is also in the boat of "taking up good land").
Would those be there without taxpayer assistance?
What will we do when all the good land for food is taken up by renewables?
Why does it need to be good land for food? Deserts and rooftops pick up a lot of sunlight, I hear.
IIRC solar panels are negatively effected by general heat. they are most effective in less hot but still dry cool and sunny areas.
also the problem with deserts (i mean i live in one) is that one its really inefficient for people to live there. food water electricity it all has to be shipped in some how some way.
Anything using elecricity is affected by heat and cold. However, perhaps the benefit of being in a very sunny place outweighs the disadvantage of the panels getting hotter.
Mexico solar power schemes are coming in at under 2 cents per KWh, which is about half the current price of US nuclear electricity.
Kilkrazy wrote: Anything using elecricity is affected by heat and cold. However, perhaps the benefit of being in a very sunny place outweighs the disadvantage of the panels getting hotter.
Mexico solar power schemes are coming in at under 2 cents per KWh, which is about half the current price of US nuclear electricity.
True.
also the alternative to that is mirror based solar generators for the desert which makes a lot of sense
though i guess maintenance would be the hardest part keeping those mirrors ship shape and dust free. Also about shipping electricity i haven't heard much about the whole super conductor cables in a while. using super cooled cables for near 100% electricity transfers. wonder how that research is going.
The thing is keeping the super conductors cool will itself take a lot of energy. So you really don’t have 100% transfer. It’s 100% minus what gets spent keeping it cool.
Kilkrazy wrote: Anything using elecricity is affected by heat and cold. However, perhaps the benefit of being in a very sunny place outweighs the disadvantage of the panels getting hotter.
Mexico solar power schemes are coming in at under 2 cents per KWh, which is about half the current price of US nuclear electricity.
True.
also the alternative to that is mirror based solar generators for the desert which makes a lot of sense
though i guess maintenance would be the hardest part keeping those mirrors ship shape and dust free.
Also about shipping electricity i haven't heard much about the whole super conductor cables in a while. using super cooled cables for near 100% electricity transfers. wonder how that research is going.
These are the best options right now. PV is still not effective enough. One day it will overtake - but these mirror generators (they call this Thermal Power) are the most effective today.
Techpriestsupport wrote: If hydrogen cannot be used as a direct combustion fuel safely couldlaefe amount of it be used to produce fuelcells to generate electricity to power vehicles?
speaking of vehicles I just recently noticed local school busses sporting "propane powered" stickers on their rears.
I've seen those on mass transit buses too.
I wonder. Is the explosion risk for H2 tanks significantly higher than the explosion risk for propane?
You know it comes to me that if they made hydrogen a fuel source they might have to add an odor to it. I understand that some forms of flammable gas have no actual smell but a smell is added to let people know there's a leak.
Techpriestsupport wrote: You know it comes to me that if they made hydrogen a fuel source they might have to add an odor to it. I understand that some forms of flammable gas have no actual smell but a smell is added to let people know there's a leak.
They do. The methane gas (which is a carbon-hydrogen compound) you use to warm your house or to cook on is naturally odourless. They add an an organic sulphur compound to it that is harmless but has that nasty sulphur smell so you notice it when something is wrong. However, for pure hydrogen this is more difficult if not possible since all known odourants you can add to hydrogen would contaminate fuel cells. Furthermore, hydrogen rises very quickly under normal circumstances, so if there was a leak in a house for example it would rise to the ceiling and then pool in the corners, making it difficult to detect by nose even if it had a smell. To ensure safety when dealing with hydrogen you need special hydrogen sensors. Otherwise you are never going to detect it until it is too late. A building containing hydrogen also needs special ventilation and ignition suppression for all electronic devices (or no electronic devices) in case of leaks. Because again hydrogen has the nasty tendency to pool under ceilings and roofs forming a permanent explosion hazard until removed, and even static electricity sparks can set it off. Obviously, this makes hydrogen a bad idea as a fuel in homes the way methane is used, but it makes for a good industrial and vehicle fuel. In vehicles it is quite safe exactly because it rises into the air when it leaks and does not pool on the ground. This makes it actually safer than traditional fuels (assuming the leaking vehicle is located outdoors). However, it is not a green fuel at all considering it is usually produced as a by-product from other fossil fuel production. It also is a gas under normal circumstances so it is not as energy-efficient as liquid fuels like gasoline (liquid is more dense than gas so a single tank of gasoline will get you farther than the same volume tank of hydrogen). That said, hydrogen can also be produced in a green, renewable way, though such processes are not efficient at all.
Iron_Captain wrote: This makes it actually safer than traditional fuels (assuming the leaking vehicle is located outdoors).
Its only safer assuming you are lucky enough that it doesn't get immediately ignited by whatever caused the tank to become ruptured. However, situations that result in a ruptured tank are generally also producing friction sparks as well as shorting electrical cables. And unlike a regular vehicle crash where you'll end up with a fire, that will take some time to spread and could be escaped, the hydrogen will immediately explode if ignited.
Iron_Captain wrote: This makes it actually safer than traditional fuels (assuming the leaking vehicle is located outdoors).
Its only safer assuming you are lucky enough that it doesn't get immediately ignited by whatever caused the tank to become ruptured. However, situations that result in a ruptured tank are generally also producing friction sparks as well as shorting electrical cables. And unlike a regular vehicle crash where you'll end up with a fire, that will take some time to spread and could be escaped, the hydrogen will immediately explode if ignited.
Nah. It would escape really quickly (like virtually instantaneously quickly). And even in the unlikely case it does catch fire, again it is hydrogen so it is going to go upwards and not stay near the ground to hurt people. Hydrogen is really dangerous in contained spaces. Much less so outdoors. Outdoors, gasoline is far more dangerous and likely to catch fire in fact.
Now hydrogen does have a tendency to violently explode when heated too much (which would not be a concern under normal operations but could be in a crash or when a car catches fire). However it can (and is) easily taken care of by building a safety release vent in the fuel tank. If it gets too hot it can release the fuel, avoiding the explosion.
Nuclear energy is pretty much the only way at the moment.
Nuclear waste is a myth. I was taught most of my life that it was sludge in barrels that took up entire mountains.... when in reality, it's just a bunch of canisters on the property of most nuclear power plants anyway.
Now if only the people who want alternate energy would stop hamstringing any advancement with nuclear energy through government control with a gun, the future I was promised 20 years ago might be a reality 20 years from now.
Nuclear waste is a myth. I was taught most of my life that it was sludge in barrels that took up entire mountains.... when in reality, it's just a bunch of canisters on the property of most nuclear power plants anyway.
.
This is a gross simplification, and overlooks the fact that this waste has to be stored effectively forever, something which nobody's quite sure how to safely do yet, and has enormous potential for something to go wrong.
Nuclear power is too dangerous to be a worthwhile avenue when there are so many safer alternatives.
Frankly, I think centralized power production in general is a dead end.
Nuclear waste is a myth. I was taught most of my life that it was sludge in barrels that took up entire mountains.... when in reality, it's just a bunch of canisters on the property of most nuclear power plants anyway.
.
This is a gross simplification, and overlooks the fact that this waste has to be stored effectively forever, something which nobody's quite sure how to safely do yet, and has enormous potential for something to go wrong.
Nuclear power is too dangerous to be a worthwhile avenue when there are so many safer alternatives.
Frankly, I think centralized power production in general is a dead end.
Look into Thorium reactors. The waste has a vastly shorter half-life, making storing it much safer over the long term.
Nuclear waste is a myth. I was taught most of my life that it was sludge in barrels that took up entire mountains.... when in reality, it's just a bunch of canisters on the property of most nuclear power plants anyway.
.
This is a gross simplification, and overlooks the fact that this waste has to be stored effectively forever, something which nobody's quite sure how to safely do yet.
Not true. Sending it down a mineshaft in the desert/mountains is pretty effective. Enough to where it will definitely not cause any issues for at least 10s of thousands of years. Unless someone goes and digs it back up it won't harm anyone.
The stuff originally came out of a mine somewhere. Putting it back down a mine is just putting it back where it came from.
Sadly we've rather a history of putting things down mines only to find containers rupture and pollute the environment by seeping into it. You need mines of extreme depth and in very specific geological locations and you ideally still need access to the storage site so that you can long term check and maintain the integrity of the storage.
Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for a future disaster and if it gets into a major ground water source the contamination can be a disaster.
Then again companies are fracking away like mad at present and that's also setting us up for a FAR sooner potential series of environmental disasters.
Nuclear waste is a myth. I was taught most of my life that it was sludge in barrels that took up entire mountains.... when in reality, it's just a bunch of canisters on the property of most nuclear power plants anyway.
.
This is a gross simplification, and overlooks the fact that this waste has to be stored effectively forever, something which nobody's quite sure how to safely do yet.
Not true. Sending it down a mineshaft in the desert/mountains is pretty effective. Enough to where it will definitely not cause any issues for at least 10s of thousands of years. Unless someone goes and digs it back up it won't harm anyone.
The stuff originally came out of a mine somewhere. Putting it back down a mine is just putting it back where it came from.
You've got to be really careful with that. A lot of that stuff is highly corrosive and toxic in addition to being radioactive. If it corrodes the container and leaks into the aquifer you could poison vast areas.
It's not a terrible idea, but it does need to be implemented terribly carefully. Especially since much of it is going to be dangerous for a long time - some isotopes have a half-life of half a million years or more.
And so far the human race has managed one empire that lasted for around 500 years or so ish - before it tore itself apart through internal issues and external issues finished it off.
So yeah 500 years of history for a halflife of a million years.
Now who remembers Space 1999 where they stored nuclear waste on the moon. It wouldn't be totally daft to currently bury nuclear waste, but have it accessible. Either for use in powerplants that can use expired nuclear material (or re-enrichment whatevers) or to have it sent into space. At least if it were sent far enough away its potential to cause harm to the Earth is reduced.
Of course we'd need a near foolproof and cheap method into space so that's likely off the cards for a while. But I could see such an idea being used in the far future. Even if just to get rid of old stocks of the stuff (if we'd moved onto another fuel)
Vitrification will solve the nuclear waste issue. Take nuclear waste, dilute it with a lot of sand, fuse the sand into a hard block of glass, laminate it like a windshield and place that in an old mine.
Grey Templar wrote: Shooting it into space is both expensive and risks a rocket explosion sending radioactive dust everywhere.
If you bury it under a desert mountain there aren’t any aquifers for it to poison. Just bedrock.
Ah... there are indeed aquifers under at least some deserts, and probably under most of them. Deserts get that way due to receiving little rain; what does fall can and does percolate down until it reaches an impermiable layer of rock, where it collects and flows in an aquifer.
Case in point; here in the central valley of NM the water from the Rio Grande is strictly regulated and at any rate is not a sufficient supply for the six thousand people here in town. ALL of our water comes from wells... therefore from aquifers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriestsupport wrote: Vitrification will solve the nuclear waste issue. Take nuclear waste, dilute it with a lot of sand, fuse the sand into a hard block of glass, laminate it like a windshield and place that in an old mine.
Not necessarily solve, but it will certainly simplify things.
I remember watching a video when I was a boy. Talking about launching nuclear waste into space via space catapults (basically an electric launch platform that can fling waste out of orbit.) Where the heck is all this cool tech I was reading about when I was a kid?
punk filling a bottle with hydrogen, sticking a rag in it, lighting it and starting a possibly devastating fire with it.
