Because we can't. At least we can't address global warming without dropping our energy demands dramatically, at the very least in the short term.
Nuclear Energy - I need to vent/rant
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
Because we can't. At least we can't address global warming without dropping our energy demands dramatically, at the very least in the short term.
Thanks Robinson. I've been looking for this information. I've found stats for individual states, and it's impressive - the Dakotas could supply the US, but I never had this broad an assessment before.
Oh god no not this again. Not the whole "There are enough wind reserves to power our needs" or "theres enough energy from the sun in a day to power..."
You know there's probably enough body heat in humans to cover a fair part of energy need. Now if we can just cover every squre inch of everyone's skin with thermocouples...
Alright, be that as it may: 13% of the earth's surface. Well, I think that's a bit low, given that the comparison between wind energy and energy from conventional sources aren't really equal. Wind you need about twice as much capacity in order to assure there is enough energy given the fact that it needs to have a storage medium, or at least a buffer. Failing that, you still need to run generators full time, all be it at low load, but still consuming energy, just to assure stability of supply. Thus, if you go with more than 20% wind you automatically need continuous pump storage or huge flywheels and pressure reserves and so on..>
But okay... Much as I think it would be more like 25% we'll go with 13%....
That is all of the lower 48 states of the US plus the entire land area of Russia. Yes, the ENTIRE land area... as in all of siberia and the windswept planes that stretch from the sea of japan to the middleeast to eastern europe.
I'm trying to calculate the weight of such turbines but right now I'm not sure if that would be possible to do within the bounds of known iron ore reserves to make the steel for that many. I think it barely would, but it would just about max out steel manufacturing capacity for the next couple of decades..
The US is building one major megawatt wind turbine every minute. Yes, every minute and has been so for the past few years. Bush announced that he hoped for 20% wind power in 25 years. To do that it would require the current pace (which is feverish) to be quadrupled. Build a wind turbine every 15 seconds. Do it for a quarter of a century and get to 20% capacity.
That assumes energy demands don't increase, which they tend to do. So 25 years of building a lot faster than we currently have the capacity to even consider. And that gets you 20%. 20% ain't gona cut it. Would it help? Yes, but unless the other 80% can be provided... yeah... not good enough.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Power
In recent years, the United States has added more wind energy to its grid than any other single country, and capacity is expected to grow by 3 gigawatts (3,000 megawatts) in 2007. Texas has become the leader in Wind Energy production, far surpassing California. In 2007, the state expects to add 2 gigawatts to raise its existing capacity to approximately 4.5 gigawatts. Iowa and Minnesota are expected to reach the 1 gigawatt mark by the end of 2007.[15] Wind power generation in the U.S. was up 31.8% in February, 2007 from February, 2006.[16]
----
Texas has more wind power projects than anywhere else in the US and more than almost any country. Theu added nearly 3 gigawatts of PEAK THEORETICAL CAPACITY in the past couple of years. They started in 1994 with the "Texas Wind" project and have sunk more funds into wind energy than any other energy source.
http://www.infinitepower.org/reswind.html
ttp://www.awea.org/projects/texas.html
http://www.glo.state.tx.us/sustain/wind.html
So.... Given the massive expenditure of both private and government funds and the huge project which has been building wind turbines faster than almost anywhere else in the world for more than a decade, I'd like to pose a question:
How many coal power plants has Texas been able to close?
Okay. Trick question! The answer is that not only are they not closing power plants, they're BUILDING THEM.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/02/19/8400164/index.htm
There are plans for building about ten new high capacity coal power plants. Yes, that's right. Not little peak plants either. Ten new billion dollar coal power plants, each cranking out a good half gigawatt plus. And why is this being done? Because as is the electricity companies are facing a near crisis of trying to *IMPORT* power from elsewhere.
So apparently NOT ONLY IS THE WHOLE WIND PROJECT NOT ALLOWING THEM TO PHASE-OUT OTHER ENERGY, IT CANNOT EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND GROWTH BY ITSELF.
Oh what about denmark? As mentioned they only have managed to achieve their "20%" number of capacity factor (not energy provided... just capacity factor) due to being part of a much larger grid. Thus, it is really less than 5% of avaliable power in the electrical system, which is low enough to keep it from causing a major brownout on a constant basis.
But they've scaled back anyway as they're starting to hit a head. Denmark has huge wind reserves and coastline. Few places could be better suited for wind. And yet... it's not exactly easy or cheap for them to get even 1/5th of their "CAPACITY FACTOR" from wind. Billions and billions spent. And they IMPORT electricity. Denmark actually gets about 6% of it's electrical needs filled by energy from wind. And much of the energy ends up being sold at a LOSS due to the low energy densities and such.
Info:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=138
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov04/4005
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=45658
I am so sick and tired of hearing about theoretical calculations of the energy avaliable on earth which completely fail to account for the practical and engineering considerations which are inherent to the extraction of the energy.
There is enough energy in waves breaking on beaches... in the gravitational flux from the orbit of the moon... in the charged particle collisions of the ionosphere to meet out energy needs. That's beyond debate. It's also totally irrelevant because there's no reasonable conceivable way of harnessing it within the next century and probably beyond.
Wind power worthless? No, it can help... but not nearly enough. It can also help if people put sensors on their bathroom lights or an extra layer of pink fluff in the attic, but it sure as hell ain't gona turn things around. Focusing on wind power is like focusing on a bucket brigade for a sinking ship. If I'm the captain of a sinking ship and I think I have a reasonable chance of saving it, you know what I focus on? The 10,000 horse power pumps. The watertight bulkheads. The possibility of patching the hole.
If the passengers want to do a bucket brigade to help a little, that's all well and good, but it only helps so much.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Give me a sufficient budget and I will have the USA off all fossil fuels and onto totally renewable energy in the form of breeder reactors and spent fuel processing - making liquid hydrocarbons out of water hydrolysis and atmospheric CO2 to fuel trains and planes and automobiles and have it DONE in 20 years. And all of it done with a degree of safety that would make any industrial safety maven happy.
In the process we would beef up the national power grid and electrify the main lines of all major railroads using the old Milwaukee Road electrification as a model in terms of trains regenerating into the overhead at stops and on downgrades because fuel you don't have to synthesize very expensively is always better.
(And there are probably better ways than using the atmosphere as feedstock, but you COULD and if your energy were nuclear you would have energy to waste on it.)
Last edited:
I just did the math. You'd need about 50,000,000. Or to more specifically answer your question about how many hundreds of thousands, 500 of them. Good thing I like wind turbines.
Though keep in mind, that is 40 times what we need. So drop it down to 1,250,000. Then consider that I want to reduce demand to at least half and you get 625,000. And then throw in other sources to complement it and you get maybe 300,000? Or again to better answer your question about how many hundreds of thousands: 3.
That's one wind turbine for every 2000 cars.
http://ask.yahoo.com/20061013.html
Okay that is emotion-based, because you can't really use facts or science to make a value judgment on something like what the worth of human society is.
Ruling out nuclear and using extreme conservation is a method which would result in a world which, from an objective factual standpoint is neither good nor bad, since it depends on what you define as "progress" and "success" and "A life worth living."
Granted, I cannot quantify or give an empirical answer for why it is better to with technology and the capability to alter the world than it is to live a substance existence. But I find the idea personally absolutely pittyful and nearly worthless.
"Global warming" is only a problem if you consider it to be something which destroys things of value. If you do not care about coastlines or the climate or icesheets then it is not a problem, as the world will continue. Likewise, if you do not put value on increased control and advancement of society through energy, then the idea of drastic reductions is not a problem.
So I guess it goes beyond the scope of this. But the idea still, to me, is a terrible tragedy.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
And how many people would die in the production of each kilowatt-hour?
How much blood are you willing to tolerate to build your future?
This is reasonable. But there's an interesting point about the things of value you listed. Would you consider all animals larger than a cat, including yourself, a "thing of value"? Because the last time the climate heated up by 7 degrees was the Permian extinction, and that's where we're headed.
Yes, that notes something extremely important to keep in mind. Co2 is not only produced by power generating. That's not even half of it. Industry, heating homes, and obviously transportation are a HUGE issue.
Most credible plans focus on electric-centric approaches. Since electricity is the most useful and flexible and really the "Base" source of energy in any industrial country. Reducing the emissions from cars, trucks, trains and buses relies on moving to an electric-centric transportation model.
I really have very strong doubts about hydrogen and purely electric battery systems being a solution in the immediate future. However, I see great potential in "Plug-in Hybrids" they allow people to have a car with the range and all the performance and capacity of internal combustion engines, but are more efficient and since many trips are very short, if the batteries alone are capable of just providing 50-75 miles or so of range - enough for many commuters daily needs, then the actual amount of fuel burned as a whole could be cut in half.
As far as what to fuel them on, that goes back to energy sources. I think right now synthetic or hydrogenated hydrocarbons and/or stuff like methanol is the best bet. Burning some of that high hydrogen stuff can give you three parts water to co2. Huge reduction.
Other energy needs can also be addressed by electricity. Heating by high effeciency heat pumps. Alternatively municipal gas service could be extended and use a hydrogen-enriched methane natural gas combination. This could cut co2 in half from gas-fired heating and industry. And if it replaced oil-burning it could cut it by about 80% even.
Factor in other stuff. Metal forging can use coal or gas. They can also use electric arc furnaces.
Hence, this is why most of the credable plans for reducing co2 from transportation or elsewhere end up falling back on the electrical system.
The electrical system, of course, is no better source of energy if it produces co2.
So the first step is finding other means. This allows the baisis for a non-carbon energy based system.
Of course doing so means that electricity demand will increase. it will have to. Even if energy demand as a whole decreases, moving toward clean systems means it will be electric-centric more and more. So cutting down on electricity need? Even less realistic in this context
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
And your all-wind grid? What does it do when something like Katrina happens again, as surely it will?
You know that wind turbines have to feather during high winds like that and can generate no electricity. Don't you?
So the entire South is off the grid, can you "wheel" in enough power to keep the grid up?
And if you cannot, how many excess deaths are caused by no power at all?
You know that wind turbines have to feather during high winds like that and can generate no electricity. Don't you?
So the entire South is off the grid, can you "wheel" in enough power to keep the grid up?
And if you cannot, how many excess deaths are caused by no power at all?
Wow... I just realized something. The amount of iron isn't the big problem. If I go based on the cost of wind turbine generator production and just look at the copper windings alone and then multiply that by the number of wind turbines needed to supply current energy needs, presuming a capacity factor of about 1/3, which is generous, and assuming that a storage medium of 50% effeciency is used (which is EXTREMELY generous)...
Then current needs could be met with an amount of copper equal to roughly 8 to 10 trillion dollars. Of course, that assumes copper supply is unlimited and the current price is fixed. In actuality, you'd buy out the market for copper pretty fast. I estimate that's about twice as much copper as is currently in existence in all man made structures and devices worldwide - since copper is rarely expended and has always been recycled and that production long ago was lower... That's close to twice the copper ever dug up and smelted in the whole of human history.
Lets see... aluminum would work for the generator windings as well, but it has higher resistance and is also not as good for inductive generating. So it would be cheaper but you would need two to three times as much.
Of course... none of this includes the transmission lines or transformers.
Geez... looks like cutting it in half won't do. 4 trillion is still a bit much, and again... that's at a set price
Then current needs could be met with an amount of copper equal to roughly 8 to 10 trillion dollars. Of course, that assumes copper supply is unlimited and the current price is fixed. In actuality, you'd buy out the market for copper pretty fast. I estimate that's about twice as much copper as is currently in existence in all man made structures and devices worldwide - since copper is rarely expended and has always been recycled and that production long ago was lower... That's close to twice the copper ever dug up and smelted in the whole of human history.
Lets see... aluminum would work for the generator windings as well, but it has higher resistance and is also not as good for inductive generating. So it would be cheaper but you would need two to three times as much.
Of course... none of this includes the transmission lines or transformers.
Geez... looks like cutting it in half won't do. 4 trillion is still a bit much, and again... that's at a set price
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
DRBUZZ0,
I would also build down the national highway system and encourage rail development with federal money. In the Constitution, the Congress is authorized to fund postal roads, well, if I had my way the Railway Post Office car would return to the rails and rail would become the backbone of the Postal System again.
And I would restrict federal funds for new mass transit builds to funds for electric light rail.
And of course fuel prices will be having people abandoning their automobiles as soon as that becomes even remotely possible.
-Ben
I would also build down the national highway system and encourage rail development with federal money. In the Constitution, the Congress is authorized to fund postal roads, well, if I had my way the Railway Post Office car would return to the rails and rail would become the backbone of the Postal System again.
And I would restrict federal funds for new mass transit builds to funds for electric light rail.
And of course fuel prices will be having people abandoning their automobiles as soon as that becomes even remotely possible.
-Ben
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
To weigh in on this, I'm more neutral here than I once was, but only relative to my previous position. I have always held that we need to pursue greater technology, greater understanding, and eventually to pursue a life amongst the stars. Our planet is too small and too fragile to make our home forever.
On the other hand... I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth", and it got me to thinking. This is serious. And I mean serious. I've gotten to the point where I may even support something that seems draconian, if there was no other choice, in order to attempt to make some sort of change. I want for there to be environmental buildings to be built; those that can stay warm and cool with less use of heating systems. I want common sense practices to be practiced by the average person. But this only goes so far, and can only accomplish so much.
I want us to continue our scientific and technological endeavors, tempered with rationality and wisdom, and yet still find a way to combat global warming without reverting to a dark ages. Could we eat more locally grown crops, tighten our belts a bit, and cut down on transportation issues? Yeah, sure, we could. In fact, I'd even support more of a "depend-on-local-ecology" type attitude, although not necessarily a law. But then, I live here in Eppelheim, Germany, where the local vegetables are better than anything I've had in the States.
I want more environmental-friendly transportation. I want cars that run on electricity, possibly through ultra capacitors. I want more use of transit systems like there exists here in Germany. In fact, transit systems are what is making a city like Manhattan give a relatively low carbon footprint compared to many other Metropolis' (Metropoli...?)
However, no matter how I see it, truly cutting down on energy requirements at the level that makes the most difference would take the greatest amount of change, and many of those changes would be very negative -- not just to our desires, but to our needs. A change that goes beyond the level of convenience, and impacts medical, scientific, commercial, and industrial endeavors... all three of which I feel takes more resources than simply living in your house and driving to your job.
However, I feel that the greatest change that can be made will be in our source of energy supply. That is where we can cut our carbon footprint the most, from what I understand. That and the use of transportation -- although I'm not sure what we can do with jet planes.
That's a lot of turbines. 50,000,000 is a hell of a lot, and 1,250,000 is barely anything compared to that figure, but is still a hell of a lot.Luddite said:
Personally, I'm not really a fan of wind turbines. But that means nothing in the context of what we need to do, as a race, to survive.
Out of curiosity, for nuclear reactors, if they replaced coal reserves and we involved reactors that used thorium and breeder reactors... could we support those far more easily than we could wind turbines, resource-wise?DRBUZZ0 said:
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I believe so, but we will still need to face our metals shortage eventually.
A few escape routes are possible;
1. Replace metals with ceramics and plastics wherever possible.
2. Find alloys of common metals that have some of the properties of rare metals.
3. Recovery of metals already in landfills (a can of worms - literally and figuratively)
4. Development of technologies for VERY deep mining of the earth.
5. Development of technologies for access to metals in the asteroid belt or on the moon.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
With oil peaking concerns, won't there come a point where plastics might become uneconomical?
Those two sound good enough, not sure about 2 though.
Hm, possible, but also possibly very very intensive...
This one will take some time to develop, at the least.
Hmm... I wonder if we can ever make carbon nanotubes easy to make and economical... wonder how long those things will last?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tim_flannery/2007/06/tim_flannery.html#comment-616443
While copper supply is surely an issue,
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/watson/watson121605.html
keep in mind that there are 55 lbs of copper in the average car. There are 2000 cars on the road for every turbine needed, as previously calculated. Or maybe 500 if you want to do an all-wind grid and replace every single kilowatt with wind power. So for every wind turbine you want to build, you take 9/500 of the cars off the road. It's a good start. Makes me want to put up more wind turbines.
http://www.copper.org/copperhome/Technology/innovations_home.html
The real constraint on wind penetration is time and manufacturing capacity.
Storage mediums of 50% efficiency are not generous at all, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage_hydroelectricity
My favourite storage is the VRB Flow Battery, which lists 60-75% efficiencies. A significant amount of the losses are to space conditioning of the building the battery is housed in, and they have calculated that 80% efficiencies are possible with pretty minimal insulation. I like it because it can go pretty much anywhere and doesn't leave nasty toxic cleanup issues.
http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/ess-benefits.html
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
When you go deep enough, the air pressure becomes a real problem!
You'd have to consider airlocking the whole thing, and essentially building it in zones if there are going to be people in it. But I think that you might be able to fully automate a mine.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Pumped hydro assumes you have access to that much fresh water.
I don't know if you have realized it, but much of this country is running out of that commodity.
I don't know if you have realized it, but much of this country is running out of that commodity.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
There's actually an interesting point here about something that drives me bonkers in regard to whether raising some kind of energy crop is a good idea.
Human food intake is in the neighborhood of 1 kwh per day. Our energy requirements are in the neighborhood of 250 kwh/day. It drives me crazy when I hear someone say wouldn't it be wonderful if we just harnessed the energy "wasted" from the crops we grow to eat? If we were to go the biomass route to any substantial degree energy wouldn't come from the waste products of our food production, our food would be the waste products of our energy industry.
Pumped hydro is site specific. It won't work everywhere. But it is cheapest where it's available.
That's part of the reason for my enthusiasm about flow batteries. They are more versatile, while sacrificing little in the way of costs or efficiency. They're also environmentally benign.