Environmentally sustainable base load power

[bigfield]

What is the most environmentally sustainable way to provide base load power to various consumers?

 

[bilby]

What is the most environmentally sustainable way to provide base load power to various consumers?

Nuclear fission, in Generation III reactors, feeding power into the existing grid infrastructure. No other currently available option even comes close; although there is plenty of research ongoing that may change this in the next two to five decades.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would say more specifically, thorium breeder reactors are most sustainable, since we are t going to run out of that nearly as soon as we will yellow cake.

 

[bilby]

I would say more specifically, thorium breeder reactors are most sustainable, since we are t going to run out of that nearly as soon as we will yellow cake.

The question is asked in the present tense. Thorium breeder reactors may one day be the answer; but right now, they do not exist at commercial scale.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seconded. Fission is the only current answer.

 

[Petrel]

What is the most environmentally sustainable way to provide base load power to various consumers?

Local source - solar, wind, tide, river, geo-thermal or a combination of whatever the geography best supplies for particular needs. Separate self-contained systems - no grid, no miles of cable to waste power in transit, no deforestation for poles or ditch-digging to bury cables; no exposed structures that can be damaged by weather. Local systems are easier and safer to maintain and repair; a problem in one town doesn't bring down three states and two provinces.

No giant turbines, that so many people hate, just little windmills, like the town water-towers - possibly on the water-towers. Or a dam, or whatever is cheaper. Solar panels and passive glass walls on every home and factory; each industry to supply its own needs with local source power. In cities, the possibilities are many and varied.

And, of course, cut the requirement by making every process more efficient, every building more dynamic, every user more aware.

 

[bilby]

What is the most environmentally sustainable way to provide base load power to various consumers?

Local source - solar, wind, tide, river, geo-thermal or a combination of whatever the geography best supplies for particular needs. Separate self-contained systems - no grid, no miles of cable to waste power in transit, no deforestation for poles or ditch-digging to bury cables; no exposed structures that can be damaged by weather. Local systems are easier and safer to maintain and repair; a problem in one town doesn't bring down three states and two provinces.

No giant turbines, that so many people hate, just little windmills, like the town water-towers - possibly on the water-towers. Or a dam, or whatever is cheaper. Solar panels and passive glass walls on every home and factory; each industry to supply its own needs with local source power. In cities, the possibilities are many and varied.

And, of course, cut the requirement by making every process more efficient, every building more dynamic, every user more aware.

Which of these options would provide reliable power for, say, Alice Springs on a hot, still night?

No solar, no wind, no large volumes of water for dams, certainly no tides, sitting in the middle of one of the most geologically stable areas on the planet - how do you plan to keep the lights on - and more importantly, the air conditioning and refrigeration? These are not trivial luxuries in that part of the world - and even if you argue that they are luxuries in people's homes, they surely are not at the Base Hospital.

 

[Petrel]

I don't plan for Alice Springs, but I'm sure somebody more technologically savvy can. Any place that needs cooling usually has plenty of sunlight, so what's wrong with that place? If it's all underground, there is probably a hot spring or some other source of power and the insulation should be pretty good. If there really isn't any source of local power, I'd say move the people to someplace better, like someplace with water.

At the very least, retrofit the buildings - most especially the hospital - to better suit the climate. Most of the architecture in North America (I can't say about other places) is stupidly, almost criminally wrong for where it's built. And they keep building whole new subdivisions in exactly the same wrong way. People get stuck in modes of thought: how it's been done is the only way it can be done. And that's usually meant the end of their civilization.

 

[bigfield]

What is the most environmentally sustainable way to provide base load power to various consumers?

Local source - solar, wind, tide, river, geo-thermal or a combination of whatever the geography best supplies for particular needs. Separate self-contained systems - no grid, no miles of cable to waste power in transit, no deforestation for poles or ditch-digging to bury cables; no exposed structures that can be damaged by weather. Local systems are easier and safer to maintain and repair; a problem in one town doesn't bring down three states and two provinces.

No giant turbines, that so many people hate, just little windmills, like the town water-towers - possibly on the water-towers. Or a dam, or whatever is cheaper. Solar panels and passive glass walls on every home and factory; each industry to supply its own needs with local source power. In cities, the possibilities are many and varied.

And, of course, cut the requirement by making every process more efficient, every building more dynamic, every user more aware.

Can that system provide base load power, or do you still need a fossil fuel power plant for that?

 

[Petrel]

"That" is not a system; it's a suggestion for local, adapted and adaptable systems that work for each particular community, industrial installation, home or institution.
What's "base load power"? Is that a number carved on some stone tablets, or is it variable?
How many Barbie dolls does the world really need?
How many office buildings really need to burn all their lights all night and kill millions of migrating birds?
Can we afford to change to something new?
How much power do we waste in outmoded delivery systems? How much money do we throw at inadequate infrastructures?
What's a reasonable household consumption per day?
Adapt or die.

 

[bilby]

"That" is not a system; it's a suggestion for local, adapted and adaptable systems that work for each particular community, industrial installation, home or institution.
What's "base load power"? Is that a number carved on some stone tablets, or is it variable?
How many Barbie dolls does the world really need?
How many office buildings really need to burn all their lights all night and kill millions of migrating birds?
Can we afford to change to something new?
How much power do we waste in outmoded delivery systems? How much money do we throw at inadequate infrastructures?
What's a reasonable household consumption per day?
Adapt or die.

If you want to live in a pre-industrial society, such do still exist in various third world shit-holes. Feel free to move there; but don't expect me to join you.

Most people don't want to live like that; a reliable electricity supply is a life saving commodity (ask any surgeon in Africa who has had the power fail during an operation and had to rely on oil lamps or candles to try to finish the job).

Base load power is the minimum power demand of an area - this amount of power is always being consumed, 24x7x365. Peak demand can, of course, be much higher than the base load.

If your generation, storage and distribution system can't meet base load, then people start to die. Peak loads are generally more 'optional', although in many cases - cold snaps in winter; heat waves in summer - load shedding due to peak loads that exceed supply can also cause fatalities.

The stable and reliable provision of electricity is not about Barbie dolls; and given that Gen III nuke plants can meet demand for at least several centuries, more safely than wind or solar; with similar carbon emissions to those technologies; and without the interruptions caused by still weather, clouds, or nightfall, your desire to allow needless fatalities through blackouts and to eliminate entire cities because they are not in temperate climates is completely divorced from reality.

Wasting power is stupid; but little is actually wasted (lighting uses very little power, and the security benefit of lighting empty buildings far, far outweighs the power used to do this).

Changing our lifestyles to reduce our use of power might be necessary to avoid disaster, if fossil fuels were the only way to generate base load; but they are not, so it isn't. If you feel virtuous wearing a hair shirt, flagellating yourself, or living in a mud hut with no electricity, then go for your life; but if you want others to kowtow to your irrational desire for suffering, you can fuck right off.

 

[bigfield]

"That" is not a system; it's a suggestion for local, adapted and adaptable systems that work for each particular community, industrial installation, home or institution.

Whatever.

What's "base load power"?

It is the minimum power supply required by the users of a power network. It includes a number of absolutely essential systems which need reliable power.

Is that a number carved on some stone tablets, or is it variable?
How many Barbie dolls does the world really need?
How many office buildings really need to burn all their lights all night and kill millions of migrating birds?
Can we afford to change to something new?
How much power do we waste in outmoded delivery systems? How much money do we throw at inadequate infrastructures?
What's a reasonable household consumption per day?
Adapt or die.

Even with the best in energy efficiency measures, a network still needs a base load power supply. Can the "local, adapted and adaptable systems" you are talking about deliver that?

 

[Togo]

There is a bit of a contradiction in the question, though, isn't there? You're asking about base load power, when most ecological means of generating power is about trying to move as far away from relying on base power as is practical.

For Alice Springs at night, the most reliable ecological power source would probably be convection towers. It's a desert climate with a huge temperature differential between land heat and air heat at night. Failing that, you might be able to do something with the River that gave the place it's name. Germany produces a tidy base load on 'run of the river' sources. You're probably missing a trick if you don't try some form of energy storage though, since the entire area looks ideal for some form of solar power.

 

[Petrel]

Bilby:If you want to live in a pre-industrial society, such do still exist in various third world shit-holes. Feel free to move there; but don't expect me to join you.

I don't expect you to do anything. You will soon be living in a post-industrial society, if you continue to squander resources on counter-productive industry and the kind of waste we have now. How you manage, after the collapse, is your problem, not mine.

My household daily electricity consumption is 5-7 Kw, compared to the Canadian average of 35. We do not live in a shit-hole*; we're quite comfortable and have all mod coms.

*How do you suppose the third world became what it is?

If your generation, storage and distribution system can't meet base load, then people start to die.

Exactly. And if the whole northwest grid is brought down by a storm, sabotage or equipment malfunctions, they do it in considerable numbers. The present grid is far more vulnerable than most people realize; it's also old and inadequate in many areas, and the power companies are reluctant to spend the money it would take to upgrade, so they're bandaiding.

It's not the individual lights that waste most of the power, its the transmission wires. (Security? Somebody's going to break into the 17th floor because the lights are off?)

 

[Petrel]

["base load power"] is the minimum power supply required by the users of a power network. It includes a number of absolutely essential systems which need reliable power.

I know what it is; I don't know how much it is. Essential is a matter of opinion and unfortunately the people with the crappiest priorities usually make the decisions. How much power you need, and for what functions, changes both over time and by user habits. We need to keep the hospital cool in summer and warm in winter, but that end may be achieved by a combination of means. We can probably do without mass production of instant landfill items. Changes can be made to the way people live and work, and especially to how they build and arrange communities.

Even with the best in energy efficiency measures, a network still needs a base load power supply. Can the "local, adapted and adaptable systems" you are talking about deliver that?

The "network" can be any size, and configuration, any source or combination of sources. Design it for the needs of the people it's meant to serve instead of forcing people to conform to a dinosaur of a system that was conceived in 1900.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't plan for Alice Springs, but I'm sure somebody more technologically savvy can. Any place that needs cooling usually has plenty of sunlight, so what's wrong with that place? If it's all underground, there is probably a hot spring or some other source of power and the insulation should be pretty good. If there really isn't any source of local power, I'd say move the people to someplace better, like someplace with water.

At the very least, retrofit the buildings - most especially the hospital - to better suit the climate. Most of the architecture in North America (I can't say about other places) is stupidly, almost criminally wrong for where it's built. And they keep building whole new subdivisions in exactly the same wrong way. People get stuck in modes of thought: how it's been done is the only way it can be done. And that's usually meant the end of their civilization.

In other words, do what I like, pay no attention to the fact it doesn't work.

*NONE* of your options are viable answer.

The question was baseline power--that has to work 24/7. The sun goes down, the wind idles. There simply aren't enough rivers or geothermal sites to power the world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"That" is not a system; it's a suggestion for local, adapted and adaptable systems that work for each particular community, industrial installation, home or institution.
What's "base load power"? Is that a number carved on some stone tablets, or is it variable?
How many Barbie dolls does the world really need?
How many office buildings really need to burn all their lights all night and kill millions of migrating birds?
Can we afford to change to something new?
How much power do we waste in outmoded delivery systems? How much money do we throw at inadequate infrastructures?
What's a reasonable household consumption per day?
Adapt or die.

Ah, I see, another little-is-best advocate. All that path can do is prolong the dying, it can't save us. Choosing it means the certain destruction of human society, probably the extinction of the human race.

If you want to die that's your choice. Taking us with you isn't acceptable.

 

[Togo]

NONE* of your options are viable answer.

Sure they are. My uncle installed heat exchange wheels into his hospital, it cut the air conditioning bills by 70%. Redesign is most of the answer, no matter how you look at it or what kind of power you eventually go for.

The question was baseline power--that has to work 24/7. The sun goes down, the wind idles. There simply aren't enough rivers or geothermal sites to power the world.

I wasn't aware that the sun went down all over the world simultaneously, nor that the wind came to a standstill all over at the same time. You really suggesting that a town in the fricking desert can't possibly make use of solar power?

Storing energy is problematic, but hardly impossible. Suddenly, the sun going down isn't a problem. What then?

 

[bilby]

There is a bit of a contradiction in the question, though, isn't there? You're asking about base load power, when most ecological means of generating power is about trying to move as far away from relying on base power as is practical.

For Alice Springs at night, the most reliable ecological power source would probably be convection towers. It's a desert climate with a huge temperature differential between land heat and air heat at night. Failing that, you might be able to do something with the River that gave the place it's name. Germany produces a tidy base load on 'run of the river' sources. You're probably missing a trick if you don't try some form of energy storage though, since the entire area looks ideal for some form of solar power.

Convection towers might work; but how much do they generate per unit cost, in the worst conditions experienced in, say, two decades? Even in deserts, temperature differentials vary from day to day. Base load systems need to have a minimum output equal to (or greater than) minimum demand.

As for using the river water for power, I suggest you google 'Todd River Regatta' to see if you can spot the flaw in this idea.

Solar plus storage might work very well - once a practical storage system is developed that does not rely on both mountainous terrain and large volumes if water (neither of which is available anywhere near Alice Springs).

Solar power is certainly a good idea in Alice Springs and similar desert cities; but it has to be backed up with reliable base load power plants, at least until new cheap, reliable, high-capacity storage is available. That could be several decades away.

 

[bilby]

I don't expect you to do anything. You will soon be living in a post-industrial society, if you continue to squander resources on counter-productive industry and the kind of waste we have now. How you manage, after the collapse, is your problem, not mine.

Your fantasy might scare the crap out of your followers, but I understand some basic science and engineering, so it doesn't worry me at all. Fossil fuels need to be phased out as soon as possible; but fortunately there is not only the choice of fossil fuel or organic vegan macrame windmills.

My household daily electricity consumption is 5-7 Kw, compared to the Canadian average of 35. We do not live in a shit-hole*; we're quite comfortable and have all mod coms.

Either you, and your fellow Canadians, are unimaginably wasteful, or your grasp of the facts is woeful (I am guessing the latter)

I use a shitload of power (mostly for refrigeration of large volumes of home brew). My consumption is twice the Brisbane average, at around 2kW.

35kW is enough to run 15 electric heaters 24x7, and still leave sufficient to run five households.

If, as it appears, you have not grasped the difference between a kilowatt, and a 'kilowatt hour per day', then it seems pretty reasonable to assume that your grasp on the rest of this topic is equally wooly.

*How do you suppose the third world became what it is?

That question has zero to do with the topic under discussion. Can we please try to focus?

If your generation, storage and distribution system can't meet base load, then people start to die.

Exactly. And if the whole northwest grid is brought down by a storm, sabotage or equipment malfunctions, they do it in considerable numbers. The present grid is far more vulnerable than most people realize; it's also old and inadequate in many areas, and the power companies are reluctant to spend the money it would take to upgrade, so they're bandaiding.

It's not the individual lights that waste most of the power, its the transmission wires. (Security? Somebody's going to break into the 17th floor because the lights are off?)

It is not as vulnerable as you seem to think, if your idea of a more reliable system is to use windmills.

Poor maintenance makes any system unreliable. It is not a point of difference between grid systems and local ones.

Locally generated power needs a grid to be reliable - when it is cloudy on the west coast, solar power can be brought in from the east coast. Without a long range grid, your reliability problems increase by at least an order of magnitude.