The Green New Deal

[Belz...]

And no perpetual motion machines have ever been built either.

I'd say our respective rhetorical devices cancel each other precisely.

I'm flabbergasted at how you're so optimistic that science will find a way to solve the problems that fusion poses which are several orders of magnitude more difficult than molten salt thorium reactors?

I think they'll solve both, if you care to know. The reason why I'm optimistic is that the people who are damned experts on the matter, not laymen, are optimistic. I tend to trust people who know what they're talking about.

And yet my car uses the same sealed lead acid battery they were using a hundred years ago.

What does that have to do with anything? They also use wheels, a technology thousands of years old!

Fusion seems to have the same problem it has always had. Containing and controlling 150 million degrees of heat. There's not a material on Earth that can do that.

Haven't I already answered this one? The way to achieve fusion coincidently means that your million-degree plasma never gets even near the material.

In contrast, the physics of bombarding thorium until it transforms into protactinium and U233 which will fissile is ENTIRELY known.

I'm really baffled by any argument that treats two solutions or problems as mutually-exclusive when they're not. How about we do both? And don't tell me that we put more money in one than on the other: how about we do both?

I've read lots of article which say fusion is around the corner. I've been reading them my entire life.

Well, maybe avoid sensationalist articles.

I want to die knowing we have saved the planet from CO².

Sorry to break it to you, kid: we won't.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd say our respective rhetorical devices cancel each other precisely.

Fair enough.

I think they'll solve both, if you care to know. The reason why I'm optimistic is that the people who are damned experts on the matter, not laymen, are optimistic. I tend to trust people who know what they're talking about.

Me too. Eventually

What does that have to do with anything? They also use wheels, a technology thousands of years old!

Because we've been trying to build a better electrical storage devices since the invention of lead acid 150 years ago and we have barely moved the needle.

Haven't I already answered this one? The way to achieve fusion coincidently means that your million-degree plasma never gets even near the material.

Easier said than done. And it's not a million degrees, but 150 million degrees.

I'm really baffled by any argument that treats two solutions or problems as mutually-exclusive when they're not. How about we do both? And don't tell me that we put more money in one than on the other: how about we do both?

They're not mutually exclusive. Nor is rebuilding US infrastructure, landing a man on mars, providing healthcare and a college education for all, solving AIDS in Africa and so on.

Sorry to break it to you, kid: we won't.

Now who's being pessimistic? But keep calling me kid.

 

[Belz...]

Because we've been trying to build a better electrical storage devices since the invention of lead acid 150 years ago and we have barely moved the needle.

Tell that to the solar power cultists.

Easier said than done. And it's not a million degrees, but 150 million degrees.

Sorry I meant million-degree in the plural.

But 150m is only for some more advanced kinds of fusion, not the basic ones I think. It's 15 million for those.

They're not mutually exclusive, nor is rebuilding US infrastructure, landing a man on mars, providing healthcare and a college education for all, solving AIDS in Africa and so on.

Exactly.

Now who's being pessimistic?

I know every pessimist says this, but I'm trying to be realistic. We're simply not reacting to global warming quickly enough or well enough. I fully expect the human species to be reduced by 95% of its numbers, collapsing the global economy for, I don't know, maybe centuries or more.

But keep calling me kid.

It wasn't meant as an insult, by the way. I fully expect that you're older than me.

 

[acbytesla]

Tell that to the solar power cultists.

I love my solar panels. I own and use them on my RV. It beats the generator. And it's a lot quieter. But I understand the limitations. It's as much or more about the batteries as it is about panels. I have much more money invested in the batteries and the charge controllers and still, EVERYTHING can be ruined by a cloudy day or shade from a tree.
Solar is fine for relaxing at a camp site. It also might one day provide a lot of residential power. But it borders on worthless for industrial grade base load requirements.

Sorry I meant million-degree in the plural.

What's a hundred forty nine million degrees between friends?

But 150m is only for some more advanced kinds of fusion, not the basic ones I think. It's 15 million for those.

I'm not sure that's true. Either way, it unfathomably hot.

Exactly

I meant that as sarcasm. Try telling those trying to balance the budget we can do it all.

I know every pessimist says this, but I'm trying to be realistic. We're simply not reacting to global warming quickly enough or well enough. I fully expect the human species to be reduced by 95% of its numbers, collapsing the global economy for, I don't know, maybe centuries or more.

I can't think like that. I'd likely crawl up into a ball.

It wasn't meant as an insult, by the way.

I never took it as one. I was serious. Keep calling me kid.

I fully expect that you're older than me.

Now you're just being mean.

 

[jimbob]

I DON'T buy that FUSION power is 100 years away let alone 15. There is just too much material science required to deal with the intense heat of a nuclear fusion. OTOH, I can see SMALL MODULE FISSION REACTORS powering those huge ships.

It's also the neutron flux - upthread I quoted an article in the IET magazine from about ten years ago (link has since died) where the interviewee was saying that getting to break-even is the easy part. With current technology, the lifetime of the plant (estimated cost about $2Bn) would be 18-months.

 

[lomiller]

Natural Gas while definitely cleaner than coal does not solve the CO² problem.

It helps though. Coal emits almost twice as much CO2 as natural gas for the same electricity production. Gas is also far easier to bring online and offline so it's a good fit for evening out the bumps in wind/solar and it's also much cheeper than coal.

It's not a final fix, but replacing coal with natural gas would be a positive intermediary step in dealing with climate change.

 

[Belz...]

What's a hundred forty nine million degrees between friends?

Is our relationship that intense?

I meant that as sarcasm.

I know. Unfortunately for you I agreed with it.

I never took it as one. I was serious. Keep calling me kid.

Your call, junior.

 

[acbytesla]

It helps though. Coal emits almost twice as much CO2 as natural gas for the same electricity production. Gas is also far easier to bring online and offline so it's a good fit for evening out the bumps in wind/solar and it's also much cheeper than coal.

It's not a final fix, but replacing coal with natural gas would be a positive intermediary step in dealing with climate change.

And a nuclear power plant doesn't emit 1 percent the amount of CO² of a similar size natural gas plant. Why build a gas plant when you can build a nuclear plant?

 

[acbytesla]

It's also the neutron flux - upthread I quoted an article in the IET magazine from about ten years ago (link has since died) where the interviewee was saying that getting to break-even is the easy part. With current technology, the lifetime of the plant (estimated cost about $2Bn) would be 18-months.

The material science of creating, containing, maintaining that amount of heat all the while transferring quickly that heat to useful purposes is a monstrous challenge.

 

[Belz...]

The material science of creating, containing, maintaining that amount of heat all the while transferring quickly that heat to useful purposes is a monstrous challenge.

You say that now, but by 2175 you'll have a miniature fusion reactor powering your coffee machine.

 

[lomiller]

And a nuclear power plant doesn't emit 1 percent the amount of CO² of a similar size natural gas plant. Why build a gas plant when you can build a nuclear plant?

Nuclear is the most expensive option gas is the cheapest

Nuclear plants can take a decade to bring online gas plants can be producing energy in under 2 years

Current generation nuclear plants can't scale the the energy production required due to their inefficient use of nuclear fuel

"Spent" nuclear fuel is expensive to store and requires continuous active cooling to prevent it from becoming a danger

In it's current state Nuclear can't and won't be more than a bit player. Replacing coal with natural gas is low hanging fruit that can make an immediate impact and at the very least help buy time for a more permanent fix.

 

[Belz...]

Nuclear is the most expensive option gas is the cheapest

Nuclear plants can take a decade to bring online gas plants can be producing energy in under 2 years

Current generation nuclear plants can't scale the the energy production required due to their inefficient use of nuclear fuel

"Spent" nuclear fuel is expensive to store and requires continuous active cooling to prevent it from becoming a danger

In it's current state Nuclear can't and won't be more than a bit player. Replacing coal with natural gas is low hanging fruit that can make an immediate impact and at the very least help buy time for a more permanent fix.

Well it all depends on what we want, then. A cleaner, more expensive option, or a cheaper, more destructive one.

 

[acbytesla]

You say that now, but by 2175 you'll have a miniature fusion reactor powering your coffee machine.

I forgot about Mr. Fusion.

 

[acbytesla]

Nuclear is the most expensive option gas is the cheapest

Nuclear plants can take a decade to bring online gas plants can be producing energy in under 2 years

Current generation nuclear plants can't scale the the energy production required due to their inefficient use of nuclear fuel

"Spent" nuclear fuel is expensive to store and requires continuous active cooling to prevent it from becoming a danger

In it's current state Nuclear can't and won't be more than a bit player. Replacing coal with natural gas is low hanging fruit that can make an immediate impact and at the very least help buy time for a more permanent fix.

Actually, very little of what your saying is technologically or economically true. It is only true because Nuclear power is being hamstrung by regulation and political obstacles.

Spent fuel can be addressed by using it for power generation. We use less than 1 percent of the fissile material before throwing it out. And the beauty of using it in breeder reactors like the MSRE we can reduce the amount of spent fuel to a tiny fraction of what it is now.

 

[theprestige]

If they bring an end to life on the planet you will have spoken too soon.

That's a valid point. If I'm going to stipulate that improving and prolonging human civilization is a good thing, then I should admit the corollary that eliminating human civilization would be a bad thing.

 

[jimbob]

Nuclear is the most expensive option gas is the cheapest

Nuclear plants can take a decade to bring online gas plants can be producing energy in under 2 years

Current generation nuclear plants can't scale the the energy production required due to their inefficient use of nuclear fuel

"Spent" nuclear fuel is expensive to store and requires continuous active cooling to prevent it from becoming a danger

In it's current state Nuclear can't and won't be more than a bit player. Replacing coal with natural gas is low hanging fruit that can make an immediate impact and at the very least help buy time for a more permanent fix.

Also technologies like carbon capture for gas plants is maturing, making gas less damaging.

And there are some interesting developments for fuel cells:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...uld-help-fix-renewable-energy-storage-problem

- having a single fuel cell and catalyst being able to both split water and recombine it with 98% efficiency could be very useful.

And elsewhere in commercial news, this article explains why I still think fuel cells might, I repeat, might actually beat batteries for electric vehicles.

https://ebook.power-electronics-news.com/?magazine=Power_electronics_March-19&page=6

As part of this, supplier ITM Power is establishing a network of 10 hydrogen refuelling stations across the UK with four available to the public. Each station produces hydrogen on site via ITM Power’s rapid response electrolyser system, and can refuel a car in three minutes, providing 300 to 420 miles of driving range.

Compare that to a Tesla s with an official range of 335 miles* for a 100kWh battery, which to recharge in 3-minutes (1/20 hr) would require 2MW, which would have lots of issues.

*According to google

 

[acbytesla]

Also technologies like carbon capture for gas plants is maturing, making gas less damaging.

And there are some interesting developments for fuel cells:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...uld-help-fix-renewable-energy-storage-problem

- having a single fuel cell and catalyst being able to both split water and recombine it with 98% efficiency could be very useful.

And elsewhere in commercial news, this article explains why I still think fuel cells might, I repeat, might actually beat batteries for electric vehicles.

https://ebook.power-electronics-news.com/?magazine=Power_electronics_March-19&page=6

Compare that to a Tesla s with an official range of 335 miles* for a 100kWh battery, which to recharge in 3-minutes (1/20 hr) would require 2MW, which would have lots of issues.

*According to google

A long ways to go. Musk believes in the end it will be supercapacitors and I'm inclined to agree with him

Right now, the cost to make store and use hydrogen is obscene. And it's not very green. And because of how light it is, it is quite difficult to store. 10 hydrogen refueling stations is almost nothing.

The PCFCs sound interesting, but it all gets down to cost. Most fuel cells today are super expensive but much of the reason is that it uses platinum as a catalyst. So nickel is a step in the right direction.

 

[jimbob]

A long ways to go. Musk believes in the end it will be supercapacitors and I'm inclined to agree with him

Right now, the cost to make store and use hydrogen is obscene. And it's not very green. And because of how light it is, it is quite difficult to store. 10 hydrogen refueling stations is almost nothing.

The PCFCs sound interesting, but it all gets down to cost. Most fuel cells today are super expensive but much of the reason is that it uses platinum as a catalyst. So nickel is a step in the right direction.

Supercapacitors don't get over the charging time.

If you want to put 100kWh into a vehicle, you can put it in in fuel, which simply uses the energy required to put that much fuel into the car.

All figures from google:

Gasoline has an energy density of about 45MJ/kg, and 100kWh is 100*1000W*3600s = , so that is 360 MJ, or about 8kg of gasoline. If that's stored in a bowser 2 m below the car's petrol tank, that is roughly 80N*2 Joules needed to transfer it, or 160Joules. Even with a really rubbish efficiency (say for the sake of argument 10%), that is very little power for a 3-minute transfer time - namely 1600J over 180seconds or about 9W of power


Meanwhile for the supercapacitor you need to put in all the energy in the form of electricity. This means that instead of the 160Joules, you are talking about 360MJ, or the energy released by burning 8kg of petrol.

For the 3-minute charging time, you would want to go for as high a voltage as possible, to reduce the DC losses in the charging cables. Do you go for 2000V and 1000A, or 4000V, 500A? or what?

Thermal issues would be *very* interesting, as would the risks of high electric fields - the figure I remember is that dry air has a breakdown field of about 40kV/cm.

 

[Brainster]

Because it's not about coal in the literal sense. It's about coal's symbolic representation of the entire "blue collar industry." We have to pretend that it's noble that a guy in West Virginia or Pennsylvania can go die in a hole like his daddy and his daddy before that even though now the entire coal industry employees fewer people then Arbys and even at its heyday it peaked at only 863,000 job which only like... Kroger and Taco Bell combined employees now or else we're pissing on the working man.

Well, there's also the fact that coal mining is one of the few jobs today that is both open to non-college grads and offers a middle-class income.

"You can come right out of high school and make $70,000 a year," said Missy Perdue, 22, a stay-at-home mother whose husband, Jeff Perdue, Jr., 22, is a miner.

April Athey, 28, also says she appreciates her husband's salary, despite the risks of mining, so that she can stay at home and raise the couple's four kids, including one-year-old twins.

I'm guessing that very few employees of Kroger, Taco Bell or Arby's are making $70k a year.

 

[acbytesla]

Supercapacitors don't get over the charging time.

Actually they do. Capacitors charge and release their electricity super fast. The problem is how much electricity they can store by weight which is a fraction of how much one can store in a battery.



If you want to put 100kWh into a vehicle, you can put it in in fuel, which simply uses the energy required to put that much fuel into the car.

All figures from google:

Gasoline has an energy density of about 45MJ/kg, and 100kWh is 100*1000W*3600s = , so that is 360 MJ, or about 8kg of gasoline. If that's stored in a bowser 2 m below the car's petrol tank, that is roughly 80N*2 Joules needed to transfer it, or 160Joules. Even with a really rubbish efficiency (say for the sake of argument 10%), that is very little power for a 3-minute transfer time - namely 1600J over 180seconds or about 9W of power

Meanwhile for the supercapacitor you need to put in all the energy in the form of electricity. This means that instead of the 160Joules, you are talking about 360MJ, or the energy released by burning 8kg of petrol.

For the 3-minute charging time, you would want to go for as high a voltage as possible, to reduce the DC losses in the charging cables. Do you go for 2000V and 1000A, or 4000V, 500A? or what?

Thermal issues would be *very* interesting, as would the risks of high electric fields - the figure I remember is that dry air has a breakdown field of about 40kV/cm.

I like the idea of liquid or gas fueling compared to electrical charging. but as I said before hydrogen and fuel cells are still orders of magnitude more expensive. It is thevequivalent of buying a 30 thousand dollar car and then spending $35 a gallon for the fuel.

The problem is projecting what the cost will be after the development and engineering phases.

I'm not saying that fuel cells and hydrogen can't make that leap. But there are still some major obstacles. One which you haven't discussed is how you store that hydrogen in your vehicle. The problem is hydrogen being the lightest element is difficult to contain in its singular state. So, you can store it under very high pressure which requires very heavy tanks. Or you can cool to -253C it until it becomes a liquid.