Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

n0t_u wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
***That’s an incomplete statement and in essence, the whole problem. It depends on the cost doesn’t it. I want economically sound methods. Strangely, when nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal are cited, the tree huggers freak out. When windmills are built en masse the tree huggers freak out. We can’t build hydroelectric dams because tree huggers freak out. So where does it come from?

Nuclear probably, they freak out at pretty much anything that appears to hurt the planet.

So the choice becomes something that works or a mass chant from them with incense. The latter avoiding their complaints the former doing more to resolve an issue besides jamming your fingers in your ears and hoping for the best.

Wait, how can anything hurt the planet?

Again, whats the magical mystery power source?

It's a living thing man, mother nature. Gaia will power the world through peace chants and love.

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the intense solar cycle we are currently in. Blame Ra.

On the bright side when we do figure out how to clean our planet maybe it will lead to terraforming techniques needed for colonizing other planets, now if we can just figure out how to get to one.

When fossil fuels run out you're gakked anyway.

You should see the possibility of climate change as an incentive to get the 'renewable energy' ball rolling.

Solar, Wind, Hyrdo (both dams and coastal) all offer vast opportunities to be explored.

The cost may be high now, but costs for new technology always comes down over time. Hydroelectric dams are pretty well established on a technological level.

Medium of Death wrote:When fossil fuels run out you're gakked anyway.

You should see the possibility of climate change as an incentive to get the 'renewable energy' ball rolling.

Solar, Wind, Hyrdo (both dams and coastal) all offer vast opportunities to be explored.

The cost may be high now, but costs for new technology always comes down over time. Hydroelectric dams are pretty well established on a technological level.

They're great, but not enough to power even a portion of current usage, not including future growth. Thats the problem.

I don't know the hydro power in the US is antiquated, instead of putting money into that it's frequently squandered, you know into electronic sports cars and stuff.
Solar collection will become more efficient eventually, I don't know if wind power will ever really take off, it's fething noisy as all get out and takes a lot of space.
BUT all that aside, renewable energy has a future as a growing component of power generation. Between more efficient power generation, and more efficient power use renewable energy, nuke power, maybe cold fusion could replace fossil fuel use.

I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.

Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.

Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.

Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.

Which doesn't do .

Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.

Frazzled wrote:

Which doesn't do .

Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.

It's not just about making everything more efficient in use, the efficiency of conversion is important too. I may not have been clear enough. If power use becomes more efficient ( historically every subsequent generation of electronic device is) and the efficiency to convert energy sources into power increases the two of them together could reduce the deficit between renewable power production and power demand. But renewable power has no conceivable chance to completely meet those needs with technology today and whats under research. The percentage of renewable energy could rise significant but would still need other forms of power generation, like nuclear power to supplement, or form the larger share. Preferably a clean source of power like theoretical cold fusion could fill the gap for both renewable energy and large generation. In the end I'll be long dead before renewable sources make up a majority of power generation.

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Which doesn't do .

Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.

It's not just about making everything more efficient in use, the efficiency of conversion is important too. I may not have been clear enough. If power use becomes more efficient ( historically every subsequent generation of electronic device is) and the efficiency to convert energy sources into power increases the two of them together could reduce the deficit between renewable power production and power demand. But renewable power has no conceivable chance to completely meet those needs with technology today and whats under research. The percentage of renewable energy could rise significant but would still need other forms of power generation, like nuclear power to supplement, or form the larger share. Preferably a clean source of power like theoretical cold fusion could fill the gap for both renewable energy and large generation. In the end I'll be long dead before renewable sources make up a majority of power generation.

To be clear I am ok with economical "renewable" sources. I just don't think they're going to be material going forward, especially in light of increased resistance by eco groups to them. If you can't build it, they won't come.

I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.

Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.

There probably always will be, it's still the solution. I like what I see from pebble bed reactor technology.

I think Nuclear power is going to become more likely in the near future. I don't see a massive need for it in the UK/Ireland.

We are pretty much sorted for renewables. Nuclear to supplement is a fantastic idea, Japan and Chernobyl may scare people away from it, but those are very unlikely events. Perhaps if the stations were planned more appropriately in Japan this wouldn't have happened. As for Chernobyl, was that not more to do with bad practice? (Hell we could just pave the area over and use it as the worlds Nuclear dump, give Ukraine a nice wee income boost ...)

Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power are the way forward... although they are prone to damage from celestial objects, damaged satellites and potentially attack from hostile nations. The cost is inhibitive at the moment, but it's an interesting an a very Sci-fi idea.

Carbon capture is for coal/gas burning power stations but requires a portion of the stations generated energy in order to capture the carbon dioxide, thus forcing you to burn more coal/gas/oil to produce a similar amount of energy. The plus side is, you don't get it going into the environment and by forcing this gas back into oil/gas wells you push more usable materials to the surface.

Da Boss wrote:I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.

Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.

The problem of course that could leak over (pardon the pun) is the regulatory requirements are so high that they are not feasible, if they can garner actual regulatory approval at all.

Medium of Death wrote:I think Nuclear power is going to become more likely in the near future. I don't see a massive need for it in the UK/Ireland.

We are pretty much sorted for renewables. Nuclear to supplement is a fantastic idea, Japan and Chernobyl may scare people away from it, but those are very unlikely events. Perhaps if the stations were planned more appropriately in Japan this wouldn't have happened. As for Chernobyl, was that not more to do with bad practice?

Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power are the way forward... although they are prone to damage from celestial objects, damaged satellites and potentially attack from hostile nations. The cost is inhibitive at the moment, but it's an interesting an a very Sci-fi idea.

Carbon capture is for coal/gas burning power stations but requires a portion of the stations generated energy in order to capture the carbon dioxide, thus forcing you to burn more coal/gas/oil to produce a similar amount of energy. The plus side is, you don't get it going into the environment and by forcing this gas back into oil/gas wells you push more usable materials to the surface.

And the Chernobyl and Fuskishima reactors were the older style, the better one is pebblebed i think, they're becoming a lot more common and don't have as many problems as regular reactors

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.

Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.

Which doesn't do .

So of course the answer from Fraz is.... do nothing! Everything will work out magically, just like Gaia prayers and fairy dust will solve air pollution.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.

Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.

Which doesn't do .

So of course the answer from Fraz is.... do nothing! Everything will work out magically, just like Gaia prayers and fairy dust will solve air pollution.

Not quite. I believe the "lets just get more efficient until energy magically appears" is more your bailiwick. I'm saying thats not enough to materially do anything, even assuming you'd be permitted to go full bore.

See if I'm tracking on what Fraz aka Fonsi with weiner dog is saying.

The nuclear plants we establish already are heavily regulated in the US. We all know that also the downside to our reacters are the "rods". Just that we have develope/establish regulation to what we already know. SO if we throw in the pebble bed reacter its a whole new ball game with a different energy technology. Besides its cheaper for us if Germany kicks off a pebble bed reacter and establish its safety regulation on them. Germany EPA is Satan compare to ours...well thats my take so far...need more coffee

Jihadin wrote:See if I'm tracking on what Fraz aka Fonsi with weiner dog is saying.

The nuclear plants we establish already are heavily regulated in the US. We all know that also the downside to our reacters are the "rods". Just that we have develope/establish regulation to what we already know. SO if we throw in the pebble bed reacter its a whole new ball game with a different energy technology. Besides its cheaper for us if Germany kicks off a pebble bed reacter and establish its safety regulation on them. Germany EPA is Satan compare to ours...well thats my take so far...need more coffee

I'm saying
1. I'm all for economical solar, wind, hydro, and unicorn dust.
2. I'm all for fusion.
3. I am all for fission.
4. I am all for cheap gas
5. I am all for clean coal.
Energy is energy to me.

But. #1 will never meet all our current energy needs, much less growth, much less the rest of the world. This is further exacerbated by enviro protestors of their own green tech.
And #2 I'd bet good money the regulatory safety requirements will make fusion cost prohibitive, if they are even permitted. Is it logical-no. But logic has nothing to do with it.

So, if it will never meet need... fine.

What is wrong with doing as much as we can to reduce the amount of gak put into the air we all breath?

Can only perfect solutions (or steps) get implemented?

Easy E wrote:So, if it will never meet need... fine.

What is wrong with doing as much as we can to reduce the amount of gak put into the air we all breath?

Can only perfect solutions (or steps) get implemented?

Did you just miss the above?!?!?!?!!?!?!? I'll restate:

I'm saying
1. I'm all for economical solar, wind, hydro, and unicorn dust.
2. I'm all for fusion.
3. I am all for fission.
4. I am all for cheap gas
5. I am all for clean coal.
Energy is energy to me.

Great, then we can agree on something. Yeah us!

Edit: Beside that Dachshunds are cool.

that is true

ShumaGorath wrote:

You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."

Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.

Shuma why are you yelling at Frazzled when you're agreeing with him?

Jihadin wrote:Well....another justification to stock up on more ammo and food.

Yup.

mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...

Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?

Matt, I love ya like a brother and have buckets of respect for you, but what has believing in Jesus got to do with denying climate change? If you are saying religion is keeping people from doing anything about global warming, I would say it's a more valid point to say that science, which produced factories, cars, planes, atomic bombs, etc. Is to blame for the state of the current enviornmental issues.

Relapse wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...

Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?

Matt, I love ya like a brother and have buckets of respect for you, but what has believing in Jesus got to do with denying climate change? If you are saying religion is keeping people from doing anything about global warming, I would say it's a more valid point to say that science, which produced factories, cars, planes, atomic bombs, etc. Is to blame for the state of the current enviornmental issues.

True enough with regards to us causing it, cars and planes and gak. The question I asked was just related to an observation that almost all of the people who are Creationists and deny that evolution took place, also deny climate change. Not everyone that denies climate change is a creationist, but all creationists deny climate change.

Sebster explained it pretty well though, as it seems to mainly be linked to a distrust of Scientists, like "they are purposely misleading us" kinda thing.

You have 0 facts for your statement above, just noting that.

I'm on board with David Mitchell (left leaning liberal gak that he is) that if you want to argue against global the burden of proof is on you to say it's not happening. There are in fact scholarly works supporting both sides.

Da Boss wrote:I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.

Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.

I advise everyone interested to look up Thorium Nuclear reactors. Thorium was initially ignored as a fissionable material because it cannot be used in the same way as Uranium to make bombs. However the first Thorium plants are due to open in India and China, and you have to think that the west will not be far behind if they prove successful.
- Thorium can't be used to make bombs, so no threat of 'rogue states' making power stations and using it for something else
- The waste it produces is thousands of times less harmful than traditional Uranium waste
- For the same reason that it cannot be used to create a nuclear explosion, even a broken reactor will not explode in the same way as Chernobyl or to a lesser extent Fukushima, no matter how poor the safety control and the natural disasters to come.
- The stuff is literally piled up. There was an estimate that at current levels of power consumption, there is enough Thorium on the earth to provide enough power for the next ten thousand years!

I think it definitely answers a lot of questions about the future of power production, and it isn't science fiction or reliant on breakthroughs that haven't yet come - the technology has been developed.

Sounds promising, I'm going to take some looks