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.

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...?

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.)

 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).

 ingtaer wrote:

 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.

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.

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

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!

 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.

Meh. Without the giant robots it hardly seems worth it *sulks*

 LordofHats wrote:
Meh. Without the giant robots it hardly seems worth it *sulks*

Your avatar seems quite apt after that comment.

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.

 Overread wrote:

 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.

and we certainly make a lot of poop.

I think that would probably turn the internet into the first real perpetual motion engine.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:


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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

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!

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.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/china-attempts-to-create-an-artificial-sun/10495536

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.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/china-attempts-to-create-an-artificial-sun/10495536

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.

There has been a fair bit of talk over the past few years about LFTR fission reactors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

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.