• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

"storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

So it's down to "what do we have a better chance of attaining? An overhaul in technology or an overhaul of public attitude toward nuclear power? đŸ˜„
The latter has the slight advantage of not being physically impossible.
Nobody has “proven the impossibility” of a sudden, radical, transformative advance in technology. Some such things have happened in the past.
I think the issue is even if we get solar panels at 90% efficiency the sun still doesn't shine at night. The same with windmills. These things are helping us, but they aren't going to finish the job. I disagree with Bilby in that we need to get CO2 emissions lowered immediately (technically we need to be reducing it), so these provide help to get that short-term goal.

But we need to be investigating technologies that aren't hamstrung with limitations that can not be addressed. If we got Thorium to work for nuclear plants (honestly, we probably should be shifting investment here from fusion), that'd should greatly reduce waste. If we could sequester CO2 into gasoline, that would be incredible!
 
I think the issue is even if we get solar panels at 90% efficiency the sun still doesn't shine at night.
There are lots of storage options that are viable, and at 90% efficiency it would open up lots more. But 90% is not gonna happen for solar IMO. Cold fusion isn’t gonna happen. NOTHING we already know if is going to happen to suddenly and radically change the energy technology landscape. Even if it’s possible, there are interests that prohibit it.
 
It is easy to do a ROM, rough order of magnitude.

1. Look up the average solar irradiance at the surface in Texas. watts/meter^2
2. Look up the average fished solar panel efficient.
3. Use 50% overall conversion efficiency to mains AC voltages. IMO optimistic.
4 Calculate a watts/meter^2 for AC line power.
5. Look up the total electrical energy produced in a recent year in the USA.
6. Calculate how much solar panel area is needed to match the porgy [production.
7. Do the same for a typical nuclear power plant, how much area to replace with solar power.

There are online calculators for solar irradiance given latitude and longitude.


Our modern paradigm that elevates and highlights differences in politics, religion, subcultures, ethnicity, and race without any concept of finding a common image of American makes a consensus that would be need to deal with energy impossible. The idea that we all have to compromise for the common as Americans has disappeared.

The technology is there to it. In the past there were national programs for an interstate highway system, and rural recreational. The Tennessee Valley Authority.

One advantage China has over us is that it can mandate civil projects. They have gotten at making 5 years pans and executing them. They are thinking out 100 years, not the next political cycle.



The Five-Year Plans (Chinese: äș”ćčŽèźĄćˆ’; pinyin: WǔniĂĄn JĂŹhuĂ ) are a series of social and economic development initiatives issued by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since 1953 in the People's Republic of China. Since 1949, the CCP has shaped the Chinese economy through the plenums of its Central Committee and national party congresses.

Planning is a key characteristic of the nominally socialist economies, and one plan established for the entire country normally contains detailed economic development guidelines for all its regions. In order to more accurately reflect China's transition from a Soviet-style command economy to a socialist market economy (socialism with Chinese characteristics), the plans since the 11th Five-Year Plan for 2006 to 2010 have been referred to in Chinese as "guidelines" (Chinese: è§„ćˆ’; pinyin: guÄ«huĂ ) instead of as "plans" (Chinese: èźĄćˆ’; pinyin: jĂŹhuĂ ).
 
A reasonable energy plan would not rely on a single source. We’ve had over forty years to adjust our energy network to involve nuclear, solar, natural gas and coal where appropriate. Each has advantages and disadvantages and these would need to be taken into account to optimize the energy efficiency while minimizing carbon emissions.

It’s possible to do, but fossil fuels provide high energy density at low prices and too many powerful folks are making too much money on it.
 
I think the issue is even if we get solar panels at 90% efficiency the sun still doesn't shine at night.
There are lots of storage options that are viable, and at 90% efficiency it would open up lots more.
Are there? Such as? I saw that California has reached a point where battery power was the largest source of energy, for a hour or so at night. Storage is expensive, wasteful, not remotely green. Energy storage is good for mobile electronics, not the power grid.

For the power grid, it makes absolutely no sense to build out three times the energy infrastructure, then two sets of batteries for redundancy, when we can simply build out plants that provide 1.5 or 2.0 what we need without batteries.
 
I think the issue is even if we get solar panels at 90% efficiency the sun still doesn't shine at night.
There are lots of storage options that are viable, and at 90% efficiency it would open up lots more.
Are there? Such as? I saw that California has reached a point where battery power was the largest source of energy, for a hour or so at night. Storage is expensive, wasteful, not remotely green. Energy storage is good for mobile electronics, not the power grid.

For the power grid, it makes absolutely no sense to build out three times the energy infrastructure, then two sets of batteries for redundancy, when we can simply build out plants that provide 1.5 or 2.0 what we need without batteries.
Not for a national grid, true. I think decentralization would be essential for any global transformation to take place.
 
The problem with renewable is it isn't the solution that gets you to the target.
The bigger problem is that it makes getting to the target more difficult.

Renewables cause a crash in wholesale prices during sunny or windy periods. This is a big problem for base load generators, as it makes some of their generation valueless.

It's even worse when (as is currently typical) renewables get sale price guarantees - when the wholesale price is negative, base load providers must pay for any power they send to the grid (this is often less expensive than a shutdown and restart would be, so they wear the cost); But renewable generators are still paid a handsome sum per MWh for electricity nobody wants.

Basically, the whole system has been designed to take money from base load providers and electricity consumers, and give money to renewables generators, who are doing nothing to earn that money.

The people who can afford to "invest" in solar panels on their roofs are basically being paid to do so by their poorer neighbours who cannot afford those panels; And that payment is in the form of being given cash for doing something that all other suppliers of electricity have to pay cash to do.

Sale price guarantees have long been used to promote energy from otherwise financially dubious sources (including nuclear power, btw). They are a very poor idea, but as the fossil fuel people have successfully lobbied against carbon taxes, they are the weapon of choice for eliminating coal power. They basically favour intermittent power over continuous base-load; The Wind, Solar and above all Gas generators love them.

But if you want to burn uranium instead of gas (and if you care about the environment, you very much do), those price guarantees are a disaster.

You can generate up to about 40% of electricity from intermittent renewables, as long as you are happy to massively distort the market such that the only way to get the remaining 60% is from fossil gas*.

If you want to eliminate fossil fuel burning, then you need to adjust the market conditions to make fossil fuel burners pay the (currently externalised) cost of their carbon dioxide emissions - ie, you need a carbon tax.

All the world's lowest emitters of carbon dioxide have grids powered mostly by hydroelectricity and/or nuclear. Boasting, cherry-picking, and propagandising aside, we need to pick options that actually lower total system emissions. Not just emissions from the bits of tne system you want to show off, nor just emissions at the times that show your favourite technology at its best, but across the entire system, over the entire year.

We need everyone to be more like Norway, Sweden, or France, and less like Germany. (Poland is right out).











* If you don't live in a place suitable for lots of hydropower. If you do live in such a place, why are you bothering with wind or solar anyway? Your electricity is already (or can easily be made to be) ultra low carbon.
 
The problem with renewable is it isn't the solution that gets you to the target.
The bigger problem is that it makes getting to the target more difficult.

Renewables cause a crash in wholesale prices during sunny or windy periods. This is a big problem for base load generators, as it makes some of their generation valueless.
I'm tired of "economics" being the reason we can't go to a carbon neutral power source, as if we are unable to manage that part of it. If the Government could manage literally trillions of fucked up debt, it can handle volatility in electricity prices. We just have to prioritize it. I'm tired of "capitalism" making progress impossible. That is the exact opposite of what it is supposed to be capable of accomplishing.
You can generate up to about 40% of electricity from intermittent renewables, as long as you are happy to massively distort the market such that the only way to get the remaining 60% is from fossil gas*.
We need to lower carbon yesterday. We can't build nuclear plants fast enough to manage that short-term. So we need an interim.
If you want to eliminate fossil fuel burning, then you need to adjust the market conditions to make fossil fuel burners pay the (currently externalised) cost of their carbon dioxide emissions - ie, you need a carbon tax.
No, we need to build nuclear plants. The US didn't need to land on the moon. Other than the engineering breakthroughs, the US gained little economically from the Moon race. But we made it a priority. We can do that with nuclear power.
All the world's lowest emitters of carbon dioxide have grids powered mostly by hydroelectricity and/or nuclear. Boasting, cherry-picking, and propagandising aside, we need to pick options that actually lower total system emissions. Not just emissions from the bits of tne system you want to show off, nor just emissions at the times that show your favourite technology at its best, but across the entire system, over the entire year.
We need to cut emissions. Renewables help. But we need something else. In light that we can't flood enough territory to make hydro work, we need the other carbon neutral thing. But that will take decades. And we need something now, well decades ago. So we need to put those pieces together, which can be done by intelligent people who understand economics and engineering.
We need everyone to be more like Norway, Sweden, or France, and less like Germany. (Poland is right out).
Oh no you didn't! ;)
 
Nobody has “proven the impossibility” of a sudden, radical, transformative advance in technology. Some such things have happened in the past.
Sure. But batteries work by manipulating electrons. There's a hard physical limit to their capacity per kg, set by the ratio between the amount of mass in the atoms that make them up, and the number of electrons that each atom carries.

The best ratio comes from Hydrogen, with just one nucleon per electron. But gases make poor battery materials, and hydrogen isn't solid (or even liquid) at reasonable temperatures and pressures.

The best solid (at room temperature and pressure) is Lithium, with six nucleons and three electrons - tnough only one of those electrons is easy to use.

Some simple math tells the sad story. Modern lithium batteries might improve at most tenfold (this is being very generous) due to further refinements, so lets say that we can multiply battery capacity by ten without new materials.

Then lets magically grant the ability to use all three electrons. Now we have batteries thirty times as good as today's.

Then we will magically invent a way to replace lithium with solid hydrogen, to double capacity again. We now have sixty times the energy density we have today, and because magic, let's pretend it costs exactly the same.

A sixty fold increase in storage capacity is as much as we can dare to imagine, and it's still four or five orders of magnitude too little.

Ultimately, a battery is just reversible chemistry. Burning hydrogen, or carbon, is half of the job of battery storage. Reversing that combustion is the other half. And the energy density of the process is physically limited to the binding energy of a hydrogen atom's electron to its proton. That's an absolute, hard physical limit. No amount of technological wizardry can beat it (or, due to thermodynamics, even reach it).

The only physically possible way to store more energy using matter - ie atoms - is to store it using nuclear forces, rather than just the electromagnetic one.
 
We need to lower carbon yesterday. We can't build nuclear plants fast enough to manage that short-term.
Then we're fucked; Nuclear power added more generating capacity faster than any technology before or since.

It's the fastest way to build generating capacity ever demonstrated.

The only thing making nuclear slow to bulld is the rules imposed by the anti-nuclear lobby.
 
Fundamentally, there is a limit to the energy density you can get from a battery, before it has to stop being a battery, and start being a nuclear reactor.

At which point, you might as well have built a nuclear reactor to begin with.
 
We have been here before:

The capacity to store power (not merely make it with more common elements) is a fixed limit. We already have an idea what that limit is.
To quote Dr McCoy, "It's worse than that, Jim".

The amount of matter required to store or generate electricity is limited by the energy density of the materials used, which is in turn limited by the fundamental forces that we are manipulating.

Wind* and hydroelectric power use gravity as their source of energy (or as a storage medium in the case of pumped hydro). Gravity is pathetic**, so huge volumes of material are needed; But gravity leaves that material effectively unchanged, so on the plus side, pollution is minimal. Nevertheless, it requires a LOT of air or water to make electricity from these technologies, and while both are pushed around by sunshine and are pretty abundant, this still implies a lot of concrete and steel, and often expensive high tech materials to capture and convert that energy.

Combustion, battery storage, and photovoltaic generation, use electromagnetism as their energy source; They move electrons between atoms to extract energy from those atoms. In PV systems, the electrons are stripped away from their host atoms by sunshine, and allowed to drop back into place; Sadly, sunlight isn't very energy dense, and doesn't happen at night, so you need a lot of fairly exotic materials to get not very much electricity. Chemical energy can be quite dense, but ultimately it's limited by the energy available in the electron shells of atoms, which sets a lower bound for the amount of matter required per unit of energy. This is why battery storage is incapable of ever working at grid scales - it requires a vast amount of whatever you make your batteries from, even if you can use the entire energy of all the electrons in the material (you can't even get close, though we are vastly better at it now than we were a few years ago; That improvement has a hard physical limit to it). Chemistry also changes the arrangement of the atoms, leading to the creation of new molecules that you then need to dispose of. And because the energy density is quite low, you get a LOT of these compounds, and managing them is a major challenge (which we historically "solve" by pretending it's not there and walking away with our hands in our pockets, whistling).

The Weak nuclear force is difficult to exploit. Some small power sources for little devices with specific needs (such as cardiac pacemakers) use it; And Radiothermal Generators have been used in remote locations (including space exploration) to good effect, but it's never been scaled up to national grid levels, and likely never will, as the materials used are scarce, expensive, and while they store a very large amount of energy, they release it rather too slowly to be really useful for bulk electricity generation.

This leaves the Strong nuclear force. Fusion power is about sixty years away, and always will be. It's sole major advantage over fission power is that it doesn't upset the neo-luddites, on the single and simple grounds that it doesn't exist. If someone developed a working and practical grid scale electricity generating fusion reactor tomorrow, doubtless the antis would suddenly discover that its components become radioactive in use, due to neutron bombardment, and would immediately declare that they must not be built "until there's a solution to the waste problem", a movable goalpost that is synonymous with "ever". So we're left with fission. It's the only way to make a lot of electricity, without using a lot of resources. And ultimately, that should be our objective, both for environmental and cost reasons.

If you want to make as much electricity as possible with as little environmental impact, and as little resource use, as possible (and I think we do), then fundamental physics says that you should look to nuclear energy; and the current state of our engineering abilities says that fusion is not coming yet in planet Earth, which leaves fission as the front runner.









*Wind power ultimately results from solar heating of the atmosphere which sets up convection currents in the air - it's gravity that makes the denser cold air fall, and thus makes the less dense warmer air rise. This rising and falling air then moves laterally due to the Coriolis effect as the planet rotates, and to a lesser extent due to the movement of the points of maximum and minimum solar heating (midday and midnight), also caused by the rotation of the planet.

**Gravity is so pathetic that the gravity of a 6x1024kg planet can be overcome by the magnetic field produced by a 1g fridge magnet.
 
I'm tired of "economics" being the reason we can't go to a carbon neutral power source, as if we are unable to manage that part of it. If the Government could manage literally trillions of fucked up debt, it can handle volatility in electricity prices. We just have to prioritize it. I'm tired of "capitalism" making progress impossible. That is the exact opposite of what it is supposed to be capable of accomplishing.
I agree. We could have governments just do it - like the French did in the '70s and '80s.

Or we could just make it cost as much to burn fossil fuel as it costs to clean up the mess made by doing do, and let anyone who wants to find whatever way they like to solve the problem.

The former is quicker. So lets do that.

The USA could be a 100% ultra low carbon electricity nation in a decade, if it were a national goal. It's a great deal easier to do today, than putting a man on the Moon was, with 1960s tech.

The US could be 30% hydro, 70% nuclear in five to ten years, if it were the top priority for the nation.
 
it's still four or five orders of magnitude too little.
Too little to meet all of our needs, or too little to make a difference in human impact?
Not really within the realm of attainability anyhow...
 

The US could be 30% hydro, 70% nuclear in five to ten years, if it were the top priority for the nation.
Presumably all the vehicles will be electric. Aren’t we still going to need fossil fuels — and plenty of them — to build and maintain all these electric cars, hydro and nuclear plants? Also, surely there must be some place for wind and solar in this scenario?
 
The problem with hydropower. Shared article, not behind a paywall

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/04/...e_code=1.x00.MA6p.xlklwWjtPa8p&smid=url-share

Global pollution from electricity generation was set to fall last year, thanks to the growth of renewable energy. Then came the droughts.
Hydropower, the biggest source of renewable energy in the world, was crippled by lack of rain in several countries last year, driving up emissions as countries turned to fossil fuels to fill the gap. To cope with the electricity shortfall, China and India turned to coal plants, and Colombia to natural gas.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency showed that hydropower’s decline last year pushed countries to use dirtier sources of energy that produced an extra 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s like turning on an extra 42 coal-fired power plants for a year. In China, the worst-hit country, hydroelectricity generation saw the steepest fall in the past two decades, according to the I.E.A.
This year, the dip in hydropower has continued in some countries, including Ecuador and Turkey, as temperatures continue to shatter records. Because its giant hydroelectric dams didn’t have enough water, Canada imported more electricity from the United States than it had done in over a decade, as my colleague Ivan Penn wrotethis week.
 
Maybe we ought to ask the question whether it will be possible to sustain a high-tech industrial civilization without fossil fuels.

It seems to me that no matter what you throw into the mix — hydro, solar, wind, nuclear —all those things require fossil fuels to build and maintain. Can they be built by some alternative method? I don’t know. Can nuclear power be used to build nuclear plants? Solar to build solar panels? What if it turns out we can’t have the civilization we have without fossil fuels?
 
Maybe we ought to ask the question whether it will be possible to sustain a high-tech industrial civilization without fossil fuels.

It seems to me that no matter what you throw into the mix — hydro, solar, wind, nuclear —all those things require fossil fuels to build and maintain. Can they be built by some alternative method? I don’t know. Can nuclear power be used to build nuclear plants? Solar to build solar panels? What if it turns out we can’t have the civilization we have without fossil fuels?
We can’t have the civilization we have for long, with or without fossil fuels. Attempts to prolong the present are always doomed to failure. We will have higher tech, lower population, less extravagant lifestyles or some combination of the above.
I’d opt for lower everything if it was up to me.
 

The US could be 30% hydro, 70% nuclear in five to ten years, if it were the top priority for the nation.
Presumably all the vehicles will be electric. Aren’t we still going to need fossil fuels — and plenty of them — to build and maintain all these electric cars, hydro and nuclear plants?
Well, you will need fossil fuels to build them, but by comparison to current use, not "plenty of them", and (for what should be obvious reasons) less and less as the project advances.
Also, surely there must be some place for wind and solar in this scenario?
Why? What do they add, except cost and highly polluting manufacturing and installation processes?

If you have enough nuclear and hydro capacity to meet peak demand on a calm wintry evening, what do you gain from adding wind and solar capacity?

And if you don't have enough nuclear and hydro for that scenario, how can wind or solar possibly help?

There are some niche roles that wind and/or solar and/or batteries can fill. But they are a minuscule fraction of electricity use.
 
Back
Top Bottom