"Alternative" Energy

[Kennigit]

Sure. I don't think a reasonable case for expanding nuclear energy in developed countries can be made. The discussion's mainly about how long to extend the capacity that's already there.

A lot of people are getting on board with the small modular reactor (SMR) designs that are quite promising for lowering start up costs, and already lot of companies are heavily investing in them. That's probably the way nuclear fission plants will develop in the future, as opposed to a more heavy investment into construction of [improved] largescale plant designs. While I agree an 80% nuclear isn't going to happen/isn't preferable, there is still a large case to be made to expand nuclear in various countries (US it's ~20% electric generation iirc; many european countries it's >50% electric generation).

And US specific, to start reprocessing our fuel. There's not really a good reason why the US doesn't reprocess and it significantly lengthens current capacity.

On the fusion side, some things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) look quite good for commercialized fusion. Fusion would be a high start up cost, but its viability (both to fit the technical criteria for fusion and in materials research) is actually being legitimately tested in the next ~20 years as opposed to always being theoretically 50 years away.

having a lot of wind/solar with a good nuclear baseload is probably the best way to go in the future.

 

[El_Machinae]

I googled ratchet system, but don't see how it actually works. (your idea. I can see how a ratchet system works )

Ehn, doesn't matter. My Big Idea (TM) is to cause hydrogen to build in the balloon/kite in order to maintain buoyancy.

I don't think that nuclear should be seen as a stop-gap, mainly because it's too expensive. That said, I have some sympathy, because some of that expense is due to onerous regulations. It's very hard to get the incentives right, though, on a problem like nuclear. All the actors have wildly different motivations, and the consequences of bad design are (potentially) far in the future.

I really do like solar. My local power company is trying to be 'more green', and part of that is going to be burning biomass. I like the idea of burning biomass, because it allows us to make use of sunlight AND maintain ecosystems. The downside is that the burning creates a lot of soot, and soot is a really big problem with AGW. That needs to be worked around, but the technology appears to be off-the-shelf.

The other type of solar I'd like to see implemented is solar water heating. This really should be something that can be done in a scalable way, i.e., in a per-building system. Heating water is a fairly energy-intensive activity (since the specific heat capacity of water is pretty high) and we tend to use a specific drop of warm water only for a few seconds (often while washing). The cost of a solar water heating system is within grasp for people like us. You get one installed on your house, and then you save a portion of the initial investment each year. The added bonus is that you no longer have to feel like you're wasting hot water, because hot water becomes a renewable resource.


There're two types of transitions into Alt.E. Ones that you can afford. Ones that a community can afford. I can afford solar water heating or an electric car. There's NOTHING that I can do to increase the likelihood of a nuclear plant near my house. But if I buy Alt.E, spend my own money, then I help create those positive feedback loops that allow us to eventually live in a fusion future.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'm trying to get a handle on the science and consequences behind 'peak oil' and picked up a book from the library today called Energy Victory, a work which focuses on energy independence as a way to undermine the governments that finance terrorist organizations. I haven't gotten very far into it yet, but in the opening chapter the author lays out the entire book: after attacking hydrogen and electric as alternatives to petroleum-driven cars, he intends to champion an "alcohol economy", promoting 'flex fuel' cars which use a mixture of gasoline and either methanol or ethanol for fuel.

I'm perfectly new to the subject of fuels. Does anyone know if these ideas have any viability?

 

[Arwon]

When was it written? Biofuels for transport turns out to mostly not work very well just in terms of the energy input required to get a unit of output. Corn ethanol for motor vehicle fuel is to my understanding basically a dead end. More efficient to burn stuff for electricity, but even then you run into massive food vs fuel issues.

What he's basically describing is Brazil, but it's not possible to replicate their achievements in any part of the world which isn't a massive sugar grower.

On the other hand, you'd probably prefer to be heavily reliant on Brazil for fuel imports rather than some other countries.

 

[Tee Kay]

Found this talk a few days ago. It's quite relevant.


Link to video.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm trying to get a handle on the science and consequences behind 'peak oil' and picked up a book from the library today called Energy Victory, a work which focuses on energy independence as a way to undermine the governments that finance terrorist organizations. I haven't gotten very far into it yet, but in the opening chapter the author lays out the entire book: after attacking hydrogen and electric as alternatives to petroleum-driven cars, he intends to champion an "alcohol economy", promoting 'flex fuel' cars which use a mixture of gasoline and either methanol or ethanol for fuel.

I'm perfectly new to the subject of fuels. Does anyone know if these ideas have any viability?

Read this instead and then make up your mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/books/the-quest-by-daniel-yergin-review.html?_r=1

 

[Smellincoffee]

When was it written? Biofuels for transport turns out to mostly not work very well just in terms of the energy input required to get a unit of output. Corn ethanol for motor vehicle fuel is to my understanding basically a dead end. More efficient to burn stuff for electricity, but even then you run into massive food vs fuel issues.

What he's basically describing is Brazil, but it's not possible to replicate their achievements in any part of the world which isn't a massive sugar grower.

On the other hand, you'd probably prefer to be heavily reliant on Brazil for fuel imports rather than some other countries.

The book my library has is by Robert Zubrin, with a copyright of 2007. You're right about Brazil: he has an entire chapter devoted to it, which constitutes a fairly considerable portion of the book.

Read this instead and then make up your mind.

Thanks! Looking into it now.

 

[Monsterzuma]

found a video interview with Danial Yergin for the penny pinchers like me among us:


Link to video.

 

[Cutlass]

found a video interview with Danial Yergin for the penny pinchers like me among us:


Link to video.

There's this thing called libraries......

 

[Narz]

Personally I think research into alternative energy is great & burning fossil fuels in this day in age is embarassing & archaic.

I disagree that alternative energy will "save" us. Ultimately we are going to have to become a more efficient, conscientious & energy respecting society. No way this waste & destruction can continue. We can't continue our current infinite growth model on any type of fuel.

My second statement is that in the year 2200, we're going to be 90% solar.

It's ridiculous to make estimates that far into the future.

Like I said, though, how we spend our money matters. If we continue to spend on luxuries, and then just become increasingly poor as life gets more expensive, we might be herding horses in the year 2200. Each litre can be leveraged by how we use it.

Herding horses doesn't sound so bad & is hardly the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is we're all dead before 2200. Considering the current estimate for global warming by 2100 is an 11 Celsius degree rise I think talking about herding horses is a bit disingenuous.

 

[Oerdin]

When was it written? Biofuels for transport turns out to mostly not work very well just in terms of the energy input required to get a unit of output. Corn ethanol for motor vehicle fuel is to my understanding basically a dead end. More efficient to burn stuff for electricity, but even then you run into massive food vs fuel issues.

What he's basically describing is Brazil, but it's not possible to replicate their achievements in any part of the world which isn't a massive sugar grower.

On the other hand, you'd probably prefer to be heavily reliant on Brazil for fuel imports rather than some other countries.

Yep, corn just doesn't have enough sugar in it to make it worth while because it takes more oil equivalents to produce the corn ethanol than you get out in oil equivalents. It's a net negative process which consumes more then it creates so it's a complete red herring. Why then is it politically so popular in the US corn belt? Simple it shoves massive amounts of taxpayer money into the hands of some very politically connected people (namely farmers in low population states who are over represented in the Senate due to the every state gets two senators rule).

Brazil uses sugar cane which has lots of sugar in it and grows like a weed in the tropics so that is actually a net positive process which generates more oil equivalents than it consumes. Brazil's experience could be replicated in other tropical countries but not outside of the tropics. Of course, the other problem is every acre of farm land used to grow fuel is one less acre which can be used to grow food so the more biofuels we use the higher food prices are going to go. A far better solution to the transport problem is electric or hybrid cars recharged using nuclear power plants.

 

[El_Machinae]

Considering the current estimate for global warming by 2100 is an 11 Celsius degree rise I think talking about herding horses is a bit disingenuous.

I've never seen a mainstream prediction for 11 degrees. That's completely an outlier.


As an aside, the London School of Economics currently held the three-part Lionel Robbins Memorial Lecture series, the invited guest was Nicholas Stern (of "Stern Report" fame). It's part of the discussion regarding the macro-economics effects of various responses to AGW.

In it, he point out two things (amongst many) that I'll store as tidbits. Firstly, IF gov'ts stick to what they promised at Copenhagen (IF), then we're in for at least a 3 degree rises (which is well into undesirable territory), which means that the current promises are unlikely to be met and unlikely to be sufficient

The second thing was that the current economic productivity generated ($) per unit of waste [CO2] needs to go up about 7-fold in order to have a stable climate AND stable economic growth. I find the idea of investment to be quite fascinating. The idea is that we're currently 'spending' litres of gasoline on various endeavors, and some of that investment will cause improved economic efficiency wrt fuel usage. But saying that it's got to go up at least 7-fold really changes how I think we should think about our current fuel usage. It's fine to use fuel, but we should realize that we need to use it in such a way to get sufficient investment to get past the thresholds we need.

Anyway, the 3-part LSE lectures are available via podcast. I recommend it to all those interested in expanded horizons if they like thinking about the topic of this thread.

 

[GoodGame]

Yep, corn just doesn't have enough sugar in it to make it worth while because it takes more oil equivalents to produce the corn ethanol than you get out in oil equivalents. It's a net negative process which consumes more then it creates so it's a complete red herring. Why then is it politically so popular in the US corn belt? Simple it shoves massive amounts of taxpayer money into the hands of some very politically connected people (namely farmers in low population states who are over represented in the Senate due to the every state gets two senators rule).

Brazil uses sugar cane which has lots of sugar in it and grows like a weed in the tropics so that is actually a net positive process which generates more oil equivalents than it consumes. Brazil's experience could be replicated in other tropical countries but not outside of the tropics. Of course, the other problem is every acre of farm land used to grow fuel is one less acre which can be used to grow food so the more biofuels we use the higher food prices are going to go. A far better solution to the transport problem is electric or hybrid cars recharged using nuclear power plants.

Biofuels in North America are not limited to corn, and we have alternatives to sugar cane. Biofuels probably will replace a significant fraction of oil consumption.

North America actually does have suitable weeds that have profit potential (without subsidy). The prairies have "switchgrass" (Panicum virgatum) and an effort in Florida is also underway to use it also. It cultivates easily.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag296
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...0110115_1_biofuel-crops-ruth-clements-farming

Work is also under-way to convert forestry waste/agricultural waste to biofuel as well. Of course that entails the problem of engineering systems that work on high-cellulose content.

 

[Cutlass]

Slaughterhouse waste is actually easier to convert to oil than plant waste. So there's a lot of room for that biofuel. However oil prices have to remain consistently high before it is economically viable on its own.

 

[Murky]

Check this out.

Link to video.

Scaling up enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels is possible.

 

[Boundless]

That video just stole 1.13 of my life.. all it shows is installation of solar cells.. why show me this?!

 

[tokala]

Read this instead and then make up your mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/books/the-quest-by-daniel-yergin-review.html?_r=1

You might want to read up a bit on what the peak-oilers have to say about Mr. Yergin before you spend your money.

 

[Boundless]

Why should we care what the peak oilers think?

 

[tokala]

Because their assessment of the situation might be closer to reality than Mr. Yergin's?

 

[Boundless]

What, ALL Peak Oiler's are more in touch with reality? An how long have they been redicting this peak?