The best future "sustainable" energy source

[bilby]

Nuclear is better, but it also has a storage problem. Once nuclear gets running, you cannot quickly shut it off.

That's only true if you still live in the twentieth century. I haven't visited it for almost a quarter of a century now; Is the Cold War still going on?

Do you have a source to verify your claim that modern nuclear reactors can be easily throttled to quickly match the instantaneous demand for electricity?

Yes.

Do you have a source to verify your claim that modern nuclear reactors don't need a source of emergency cooling water?

Yes.

Or are you just going to endlessly repeat the claims without answering the questions?

I am not making claims; You are. I am rebutting your PRATTs.

If you want refutations, you'll need to wait until I have both the time and the patience to dig them up (again).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are showing is an approach useful for some aspects of it, but not for refining--it's not hot enough.

This is correct. Nuclear (hopefully) never gets the original source hot enough to melt steel (or else the reactor would break), and you can't heat a body beyond the black body temperature of the source. You could hear a forge, or keep the steel hot enough to form easily with that heat, but you could never actually take it to melt for refining or smelting that way.

There are, obviously, ways to get stuff hotter than a black body source, but not without an active component adding heat to a closed system.

I don't think it's required that the component add heat. It does need to be powered (and thus obviously it's power gets added) but it can move existing heat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And third your solution must pay up front all the fair market price of an insurance plan or government program to cover any damages it might cause, including possible future releases of waste materials in the next 200 years.

Hmm. All the damages it "might" cause is UNLIMITED damages, for absolutely any and all choices. You just rendered the problem impossible to address, because literally EVERYTHING might cause damage.

No, I did not say power companies must pay all possible damages they might cause in the comparison above. All I asked is each solution "must pay up front all the fair market price of an insurance plan or government program to cover any damages it might cause". So if your solution has one chance in a million of killing a thousand people, then the cost of the solution for the sake of this comparison must include the fair market price for insurance or a government program to cover this. Such insurance might not even be available, but this comparison assumes each supplier would be responsible for the fair market cost of such insurance if it existed. That is only fair that this gets included in the comparison.

The problem with using an insurance model is that it only is meaningful in realms where insurance operates properly.

Fundamentally, an insurance company exists to spread the risk amongst it's policyholders. That model breaks down when the size of a claim relative to the number of policyholders is too great. In the real world we see the reinsurance business--big companies that act as insurance companies for smaller insurance companies. However, even this will eventually run out of room. That's why in the US flood insurance is a government program--there is no private insurance entity willing to insure something that big. (Because floods hit many homes at once the insurance companies model it as if the flood were one claim.) Likewise, I've looked at earthquake insurance--the premium vs risk clearly shows that the insurance companies do not actually want such business and have priced it extremely unattractively. (And that they didn't even care that our house is actually earthquake-engineered--it was cheaper to use existing plans from earthquake country than make new ones without the extra bracing.)

And there's no insurance company willing to take the political risk. Fukushima didn't need to be evacuated.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you are showing is an approach useful for some aspects of it, but not for refining--it's not hot enough.

This is correct. Nuclear (hopefully) never gets the original source hot enough to melt steel (or else the reactor would break), and you can't heat a body beyond the black body temperature of the source. You could hear a forge, or keep the steel hot enough to form easily with that heat, but you could never actually take it to melt for refining or smelting that way.

There are, obviously, ways to get stuff hotter than a black body source, but not without an active component adding heat to a closed system.

I don't think it's required that the component add heat. It does need to be powered (and thus obviously it's power gets added) but it can move existing heat.

Moving existing heat from a colder place to a hot place requires additional heat.

Moving heat from a hot place to a cold place is going to just happen over time.

 

[Elixir]

The ttl solar energy incidence at the surface of Earth is finite.

Another reason solar makes sense if mitigating global warming is a priority.

 

[steve_bank]

The ttl solar energy incidence at the surface of Earth is finite.

Another reason solar makes sense if mitigating global warming is a priority.

In the words of Alfred E Newman, 'What, me worry?'

 

[steve_bank]

listed to a BBC report on orbiting solar panels beaming energy back to Earth. I first had the idea back in the late 70s, I recall Boeing having a research project.

The idea is to have orbiting solar panels, cobvert to microwaves, ad bem it to Earth.

Apparently China and the ESA have prooof of concept projects with estimated launch dates.

The guy on the show proposed an army of space robots to assemble the platforms in space. Large enough to supply a large part of the demand. There would be large antenna arrays on ground. The EARTH word essentially be bathed in more low level radiation 24/7..

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/climate/space-solar-farms-climate/index.html

SOLARIS

To prepare Europe for future decision making on Space-Based Solar Power, ESA has kicked-off a preparatory initiative, called SOLARIS, for which funding was approved at the ESA Council at Ministerial Level in November 2022.

www.esa.int

 

[Merle]

No, I did not say power companies must pay all possible damages they might cause in the comparison above. All I asked is each solution "must pay up front all the fair market price of an insurance plan or government program to cover any damages it might cause". So if your solution has one chance in a million of killing a thousand people, then the cost of the solution for the sake of this comparison must include the fair market price for insurance or a government program to cover this. Such insurance might not even be available, but this comparison assumes each supplier would be responsible for the fair market cost of such insurance if it existed. That is only fair that this gets included in the comparison.

The problem with using an insurance model is that it only is meaningful in realms where insurance operates properly.

Fundamentally, an insurance company exists to spread the risk amongst it's policyholders. That model breaks down when the size of a claim relative to the number of policyholders is too great. In the real world we see the reinsurance business--big companies that act as insurance companies for smaller insurance companies. However, even this will eventually run out of room. That's why in the US flood insurance is a government program--there is no private insurance entity willing to insure something that big. (Because floods hit many homes at once the insurance companies model it as if the flood were one claim.) Likewise, I've looked at earthquake insurance--the premium vs risk clearly shows that the insurance companies do not actually want such business and have priced it extremely unattractively. (And that they didn't even care that our house is actually earthquake-engineered--it was cheaper to use existing plans from earthquake country than make new ones without the extra bracing.)

And there's no insurance company willing to take the political risk. Fukushima didn't need to be evacuated.

Understood. That is why I only asked to consider what the "fair market value" of such an insurance would be, even if it is not available. For the sake of our comparison, all we need to consider is an estimate of the fair market value.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

listed to a BBC report on orbiting solar panels beaming energy back to Earth. I first had the idea back in the late 70s, I recall Boeing having a research project.

The idea is to have orbiting solar panels, cobvert to microwaves, ad bem it to Earth.

Apparently China and the ESA have prooof of concept projects with estimated launch dates.

The guy on the show proposed an army of space robots to assemble the platforms in space. Large enough to supply a large part of the demand. There would be large antenna arrays on ground. The EARTH word essentially be bathed in more low level radiation 24/7..

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/climate/space-solar-farms-climate/index.html

SOLARIS

To prepare Europe for future decision making on Space-Based Solar Power, ESA has kicked-off a preparatory initiative, called SOLARIS, for which funding was approved at the ESA Council at Ministerial Level in November 2022.

www.esa.int

This will solve all of our problems! All we need to do is build one 1.8 or so kilometer long structure... in space and at a great distance... and it'll replace all of Earth's... all of America's... well two power plants. But if we build 2000 of these 3600 aggregated kilometers worth of structures, I'm certain that it'll totally make up for all the energy and emissions used to shoot that 3600 kilometers worth of structure materials into space.

 

[lpetrich]

 Solar constant "measures the amount of energy received by a given area one astronomical unit away from the Sun."

1361 watts per square meter

 List of countries by electricity consumption - 2.89 terawatts - 100% efficiency: (46 kilometers)^2 - 30% efficiency: (84 km)^2 - 10% efficiency: (146 km)^2

 World energy supply and consumption - 19.6 terawatts - 100% efficiency: (120 km)^2 - 30% efficiency: (219 km)^2 - 10% efficiency: (380 km)^2

It's numbers like that which make me very skeptical about orbiting solar power plants. One has to get a *lot* into low Earth orbit.

 Space launch market competition - Falcon 9 to low Earth orbit: $2,720/kg

Searching for "solar panels for home" in shopping.google.com gives as its first hit Amazon.com : 2400w Solar Panels 4x600w Flexible Solar Panel Kit Solar Panels for Homes with 2 Controllers (40a) Single Crystal High Efficiency Photovoltaic Modules for Recreational Vehicles/Roofs/Ships : Patio, Lawn & Garden
Priced at $495.32 - $0.206/watt
Weight is 4*4 lbs = 16 lbs = 7 kg, giving 3.02 grams/watt. With Falcon-9 launch cost, $8.22/watt -- about 40 times the on-the-ground cost

 

[lpetrich]

Using $0.20/watt on the world electricity and energy consumptions gives 0.6 and 4 trillion dollars. Multiply by a factor of 40 for orbiting solar-power platforms.

Estimated efficiency:

Each one of 4 has dimensions: 40.55"L x 26.38"W x 0.12"H = 103 cm L * 67 cm W * 0.3 cm H

Solar flux on all 4 = 3760 watts, giving efficiency 0.64

 

[lpetrich]

An Earthbound solar panel has its efficiency reduced by two factors: the Sun being above the horizon only half of the time and the Sun's direction varying when it is above the horizon. These two effects give an efficiency factor of about 1/4.

So one has to install about 4 times as much solar panel to get the efficiency of an orbiting power station, reducing the orbiting one's relative price by a factor of 4, giving 10.

That's still very expensive.

 

[Merle]

An Earthbound solar panel has its efficiency reduced by two factors: the Sun being above the horizon only half of the time and the Sun's direction varying when it is above the horizon. These two effects give an efficiency factor of about 1/4.

So one has to install about 4 times as much solar panel to get the efficiency of an orbiting power station, reducing the orbiting one's relative price by a factor of 4, giving 10.

That's still very expensive.

I can easily install 4 solar panels on Earth for less cost than you can install 1 in space.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Using $0.20/watt on the world electricity and energy consumptions gives 0.6 and 4 trillion dollars. Multiply by a factor of 40 for orbiting solar-power platforms.

Estimated efficiency:

Each one of 4 has dimensions: 40.55"L x 26.38"W x 0.12"H = 103 cm L * 67 cm W * 0.3 cm H

Solar flux on all 4 = 3760 watts, giving efficiency 0.64

I'm thinking there are losses in transmission. Also something large in the middle.of space would attract a flock of space geese.

 

[steve_bank]

You also have to factor in power conversion efficiency. You can buy lights and equipment like refrigerators to run off of DC. If you want to create AC then you need electronics to do it. As a rough efficiency use 50%.

Efficiencies multiply. A panel efficiency of 50% and power conversion 50% yields overall efficiency 25% Plus losses in wires and connections. As current goes up resistive losses go up in the solar cells. They heat up.

Efficiency is proportional to voltage, The higher the voltage the better efficiency. You have to series parallel panels to get a high voltage and current. That adds losses.

 

[bilby]

f you want to create AC then you need electronics to do it. As a rough efficiency use 50%.

What is this, the 1950s?

Solar power inverters are very efficient these days. They rapidly rise in efficiency at low power, so once your array is generating more than a couple of hundred watts (typically about 2% of the rated output of a modern system), efficiency should be between 85 and 95 percent. The efficiency drops again as the input power rises, but that's only an issue if you installed an under-rated inverter (or to put it another way, if you installed too many panels for the inverter you are using).

an efficiency of less than about 83% would be considered ‘sub-optimal’, and ideally the system should be sized to minimise the amount of time during the day that the inverter operates within this range

https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog...el-system-efficiency-through-inverter-sizing/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

listed to a BBC report on orbiting solar panels beaming energy back to Earth. I first had the idea back in the late 70s, I recall Boeing having a research project.

The idea is to have orbiting solar panels, cobvert to microwaves, ad bem it to Earth.

Apparently China and the ESA have prooof of concept projects with estimated launch dates.

The guy on the show proposed an army of space robots to assemble the platforms in space. Large enough to supply a large part of the demand. There would be large antenna arrays on ground. The EARTH word essentially be bathed in more low level radiation 24/7..

Microwave band and as you say, low energy. You still need vast areas of land for the receivers, but unlike solar the land isn't used up in the process. The receivers are collections of wire that block only a small portion of the sky--it would probably impair farm yields a bit but would likely have no noticeable effect over pasture lands and the like. And, unlike the sun, it doesn't care about clouds. And, with enough satellites, it doesn't really care about night, either. (Any given satellite will still have dark time but if you put two transmitters and switch things around you can have continuous power at the receiver.)

I haven't seen any analysis of what would happen to birds, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I did not say power companies must pay all possible damages they might cause in the comparison above. All I asked is each solution "must pay up front all the fair market price of an insurance plan or government program to cover any damages it might cause". So if your solution has one chance in a million of killing a thousand people, then the cost of the solution for the sake of this comparison must include the fair market price for insurance or a government program to cover this. Such insurance might not even be available, but this comparison assumes each supplier would be responsible for the fair market cost of such insurance if it existed. That is only fair that this gets included in the comparison.

The problem with using an insurance model is that it only is meaningful in realms where insurance operates properly.

Fundamentally, an insurance company exists to spread the risk amongst it's policyholders. That model breaks down when the size of a claim relative to the number of policyholders is too great. In the real world we see the reinsurance business--big companies that act as insurance companies for smaller insurance companies. However, even this will eventually run out of room. That's why in the US flood insurance is a government program--there is no private insurance entity willing to insure something that big. (Because floods hit many homes at once the insurance companies model it as if the flood were one claim.) Likewise, I've looked at earthquake insurance--the premium vs risk clearly shows that the insurance companies do not actually want such business and have priced it extremely unattractively. (And that they didn't even care that our house is actually earthquake-engineered--it was cheaper to use existing plans from earthquake country than make new ones without the extra bracing.)

And there's no insurance company willing to take the political risk. Fukushima didn't need to be evacuated.

Understood. That is why I only asked to consider what the "fair market value" of such an insurance would be, even if it is not available. For the sake of our comparison, all we need to consider is an estimate of the fair market value.

Which is what, fundamentally, regulators are supposed to do--minimize the lives lost within budget constraints.

Unfortunately, the process has become so political that on high profile issues there's often a major disconnect between ideal and reality. There's also the problem that industries that find themselves in the firing line squeal like stuck pigs. (For example, coal. Sane regulation would demand it be phased out completely.)

 

[steve_bank]

Efficiencies for commercial panels and power conversion systems are typically quoted at specific ope
rating conditions, usually picked to show the max passable efficiency.

Panel efficiency will vary with temperature, sunlight, and load current.

Solar Performance and Efficiency

Improving photovoltaic (PV) efficiency is a key goal of research and helps make PV technologies cost-competitive with conventional sources of energy.

www.energy.gov

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An Earthbound solar panel has its efficiency reduced by two factors: the Sun being above the horizon only half of the time and the Sun's direction varying when it is above the horizon. These two effects give an efficiency factor of about 1/4.

So one has to install about 4 times as much solar panel to get the efficiency of an orbiting power station, reducing the orbiting one's relative price by a factor of 4, giving 10.

That's still very expensive.

But you grabbed an off-the-shelf item. You really think they wouldn't optimize for weight for anything that's going to fly? (On the other hand, you can't expect an off the shelf product to survive the launch, either.) You also used the Falcon-9 as your model--admittedly sensible as it's currently the cheapest ride. However, you are missing a couple of things. First, it would not be hard for SpaceX to beef up a Falcon Heavy to fly LEO payloads (it currently does not because it hits max payload mass well before running out of energy--there simply isn't the market for heavy stuff to LEO to warrant making a separate version) and cut your numbers in half. And the estimates for the Super Heavy make launch costs a reasonably small part of the total cost.