Global warming vs our economy - Page 3

How is this different from Wind/Solar?

Really, no worse that fossil fuel plants, and less (no) emissions. The area around the Calvert plant in MD, I believe, is a protected wetlands. There also would seem to be plenty of Uranium and Thorium to go for quite a while -- at least until better technology is available.

"Renewable" energy source are ridiculous to consider, since we as humans can mark our progress by our ability to utilize energy. If the entire surface of the earth were coated with solar panels, it still would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy needs expected for 22nd century human development. And please don't give me the "we should just use less energy" spiel: there's no shortcut, for example, for building and operating an elevator to space.

Wind generator farms are good for temporary construction jobs, but they only require a small workforce for maintenance. Nuclear plants on the other hand will create thousands of tempoarary construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs per plant and hundreds of temporary jobs for re-fueling and maintenance.

The best we can expect is the worst case scenario. No new improvements in energy production with a 100-fold increase in world use per half century. Nuclear alone isn't sufficient, nor are the newest of the new fossil fuel plants, nor (perhaps) are solar panels or wind farms. The point is that we have to do everything, and this one plant fits all approach is just another fumble of our future by people with their own crushing market interests...

w00t!


Availability of solar energy

Please, we need to consider ALL alternatives of energy production and ALL methods of capitalization of said alternatives.

Considering is fine, but ultimately I see solar & wind power fulfilling much less centralized roles. The economics of the situation are hard to justify any other way: the amount of energy required to produce and maintain the solar or wind infrastructure (i.e. building the fixtures) is high. With fusion power seemingly well within the grasp of the next 100 years, I would be tremendously upset if I were forced to shell out for high energy costs in the name of renewable infrastructure.

Fusion is as much a pipe dream as biohydrogen is at this moment...

And I work in a DOE funded biohydrogen lab...

Learn maybe one other language to train your brain. So I can come even close to taking you seriously.
So ein blöder Arsch.

1. The projections that I have seen are a 5-fold increase in energy usage by 2050, where did you get 100-fold from?

2. Solar and wind are too expensive, and they don't scale well. Wind power is twice as expensive as nuclear power, and solar is even more costly.

Right now petrochemicals produce 85% of our power, and we get 15% from Nuclear. Nuclear has the capacity to expand to fill the void, and just because Carter was a pussy does not mean that breeder reactors are not going to be used - they are the only available thing that will scale to the required usage, and they are fine for the western world.

Wind, solar and wave power are only expensive initially. As I said earlier, solar panels have an unknown lifespan. Wind turbines run for about 30 years without major maintenance issues (I own a few turbines). Wave generators are too new to know.
Nuclear power has this pesky "what to do with the trash" problem.
The only real deciding factor should be: how can we produce energy without the stink. We should reserve Oxigen for breathing. Do we really need to burn it up so we can post our thoughts on this forum?

Oil = dead things. I never thought filling the air with death is the best idea, it's working for now but will suffocate us all eventually.

It does not matter when the expense is incurred - hydro electric is very expensive initially also, but that does not make the power free after that. The initial expense is amortized over the life of the device, and when you do that with wind or solar then you realize that it is cost prohibitive.

Breeder reactors produce much less waste than conventional, and even conventional reactors produce very little waste (particular compared to coal based power plants).

Unfortunately we have to find de-centralized solutions. distribution is a big problem and expensive. It can be knocked out by one big storm. This year alone millions of people in the US had no electricity for weeks. I will have juice while the net is out. I feel much safer haveing my own generating equipment and not rely on anyone for my electricity.
Wind energy is great business and so is solar.

Maybe a scenario where big industry is fed by a local reactor but individual residences have private generation would make sense.

Distribution is not a problem, and underground power lines solve most of the reliability issues. Not only that, but maintenance on distributed systems is much higher than on central systems - storms that can rip down power lines can also rip pannels off your roof.

Distributed power generation will never be as efficient as central power generation, due to efficiencies of scale. Your solar pannels are much more expensive than a central nuclear power plant, and the voltage drop over the length of the electrical main is not enough to compensate.

You are either a communist or your wife's name Uranium?

I want my own power. I don't give an f what it costs. I am a capitalist.
If I want pink solar panles with bells and a print of Pamela Anderson's boobs I will get them.

Solar tech is advancing rapidly. Prices will naturally come down. There is no definitive solution and there shouldn't be. In a few years you won't be able to tell solar cells from "normal" building materials. Even the paint on the walls will be a form of solar cells.

I don't want to prevent people from generating their own power, I'm just pointing out that it is not cost effective compared to centralized power generation. I have a 45 KW propane generator and 3000 gallons of propane tanks at my house, but I can't afford to run them all the time - it is much less expensive to use centralized nuclear power plants (which is what I do 99.9% of the time).

Also, per-house power generation puts maintenance costs on the end user, and most end users are not up to the task. It is a pipe dream to think that we will end up with distributed power.

Yes, also here in rural Mississippi, all the trailer trash are getting solar panels, because solar technology is just, you know, so cheap! I can't drive by a trailer park without seeing crackers having solar cell construction parties. Also in the Delta solar cells are really taking off. And look at the tax break those people get, each and every one of them gets a $0.02/yr tax break to offset their solar cell investment, of course they don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway, but nevermind that.

The technology is just so affordable, it's just so obvious. And all this time the entire world has been fooled by a grand conspiracy by the utility industries, globally. Centeralized distribution, what a load of bunk. Mom and Pop energy stores, coming to a street corner near you, because it's cheaper! Centeralized maintenance, another load of bunk. Power grid for redistribution of energy where needed, another load of bunk. Economics of scale, another load of bunk! 24/7 power availability, another load of bunk, why we all can afford a room full of lead batteries and the power management system needed to regulate said power, why, because it's so cheap.

The EPA has just issued a Smug Alert for this thread!

We are pretty much DOOMED to stay in the same place. Why? Because it's CHEAPER TODAY!

It's called GLOBAL WARMING, it's a GLOBAL problem, it needs a GLOBAL solution.

I talked to the SMUG people in this thread about poor people here in the USA and what they will ever be able to afford. Solar will never replace fossil fuels, solar will always cost more, no matter what economics of scale you apply, as long as fossil fuels exist. It's basic physics, low energy density fuel versus high energy density fuel!

The GLOBAL population largely consists of POOR people.

Where do most of those POOR people live? India, China, Indonesia, Africa, etcetera.

What are India and China doing to meet their energy needs? Bringing online coal fired power plants at a pace of better than one per week! Coal is by far the worst fossel fuel in terms of CO2 emissions. High sulphur coal (the most plentiful) produces 4 tons of CO2 for each ton burned! China and India are also increasing per capita usage of petroleum at a higher rate than any other countries. Who got a pass in the Kyoto accords? China and India, which last time I checked had the largest populations!

Dude, you need to do some basic math, do some basic homework, before you think solar power is the magic pill to the global warming problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar R&D and general investments in solar infrastructure and tax credits/incentives, but at THIS time (particularly) it would need heavy government subsidies to create a large reasonably cost effective market here in the USA, notwithstanding the rest of the 3rd world, which is, you know, basically POOR!

So in closing, based on your reply, the EPA still hasn't lifted their Smug Alert for this thread!

PS - To all those smug people (and anyone else) who can afford more costly energy alternatives that have lower CO2 emissions, by all means, make my day!

I still say nuclear is the way to go. Yes nuclear waste disposal is a problem, but if the government would get off their asses and get the Yucca Mtn project going, that would help with the problem of nuclear waste.

I know the people of Nevada don't want it, but it will be a safe and secure place to dipose of the waste.

Addressing global warming creates a multitude of new industries with a very high money potential. The problem that some people see with addressing global warming and the economy is that it may ruin their industry. To be very specific, the oil, gas, and natural resources industries will suffer and those industries are not ready to let go of their market control. In total, the impact on the economy will be positive, just not for the oil people if they refuse to move forward and take advantage of new opportunities before someone else does.

Nuclear is not the way to go. There are much better alternatives.

New flexible solar panels with the constancy and look of shingles.
Fission energy which in principal would have a lot less waste than nuclear energy.
New technology that captures energy from ocean tides.
Wind power, other methods of hydro power.

You could even potentially harvest the energy from the sway of a tall skyscraper.

Exactly. Different "alternatives" added together. Including nuclear already in place. Nuclear could be phased out eventually. The key will be when the technology is in place(we're almost there) to be massified and people realize they can save(and even make money) just by being green. We need to move past the "being green is for treehuggers" mentality. That's so passé.

LIke I said earlier. The short term future solar panels won't even look like solar panels. Think spray on solar power cells thanks to nanotech for example. Etc etc.

A "free" market of energy alternatives is in order, but it may take some government assistance to accelerate the process in a timely fashion. Remember there's a boatload of coal out there waiting to be burned. The western world (in particular the USA) should lead the charge in seeking low cost (or lowering the cost of) alternatives, because basically I don't think anyone else will. It has the potential to (partially) solve a number of trade/economic issues.

PS - The EPA has lifted their Smug Alert.

"Fission energy" is what we are talking about when we say "Nuclear power" - what are you talking about that is different that what we are already doing?

And those other alternatives are not going to ever supply enough energy - it is Nuclear, coal or the fall of civilization, you have only three choices.

ITER is a research reactor only, it will not generate electricity, and it will only run for a maximum of 500 seconds at a time.

Sorry, I meant FUSION not FISSION. Yes it is nuclear because it involves reactions of nuclei, but it is not the same as the Nuclear energy we have today (Nuclear Fission). At any rate, Fusion (or even Cold Fusion but that is less likely) could be a possibility within a few decades, and it produces significantly less waste than nuclear Fission.

As as far as sources of power other than coal or nuclear being viable, you are ENTIRELY wrong. You are right that the current technologies would not be able to power the world's civilizations but advances in alternative energy sources are coming very rapidly.

Until recently the only way to produce hydrogen was to burn fossil fuels and coals making it a net loss. But now there are new ways to create hydrogen. The Electrolysis of water using solar generators is one. Second, certain kinds of algae can be used in an hydrogen farm to produce hydrogen naturally.

When there is a will, there is a way; and there certainly is a will.

Excerpt about fuel cells from a paper I had to write about Global Warming.

New technologies have great possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and lowering other pollutions. One of these is fuel cell technology. With emissions from
fossil fuels increasing over the next decade by 243% to 2.4 million tones of carbon
dioxide equivalent, fuel cell technology is one very plausible solution that would almost
eliminate most carbon dioxide emissions (Earth Science Australia, 2005). Fuel cells burn
hydrogen instead of fossil fuels and the only byproduct is drinking water in the form of
water vapor. Currently, there are five major types of fuel cells. Proton Exchange
Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells fuel cells are much superior to other fuel cells in several
key areas. They operate at a relatively lower temperature than most other fuel cells (70-
90 degrees Fahrenheit), are highly efficient, pose high power density, offer high
reliability, and have a long operating life. PEM fuel cells are most often used in public
transportation and are being developed for stationary power plants (Transportation
Energy Technology Program, 2005).

Since fuel cells come from hydrogen, and hydrogen can come from water, fuel
cell technology is considered renewable. Fuel cell technology can be used in public
transportation, motor vehicles, marine applications, space programs, industrial factories,
and power plants. Fuel cells are useful for public transit and motor vehicles because the
demand for no emission and no pollution vehicles is increasing rapidly. PEM fuel cells
were first used in some buses in Canada since 1993. In 1995, Chicago Transit tried an
experiment with 3 fuel cell buses. PEM fuel cell powered buses do not lack the power
that many other vehicles have, and operation is highly efficient with engines nearly two
times as efficient as spark ignite engines. Fuel cells are used in submarines because they
have low noise and low heat emissions. The endurance of the vehicle also increases
tenfold. The space program uses fuel cells in part because they have a high efficiency,
high capacity, and pure drinking water is the byproduct. NASA used fuel cells to help
power space crafts since the 1960’s (Transportation Energy Technology Program, 2005).
Right now, the main problem with fuel cell technology is producing the hydrogen.
In order to produce hydrogen, you either have to extract it from hydrocarbons and this
burns the same amount of carbon as you burn anyway, or use electrolysis, which requires
electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells can be practical if reliable solar, wind, or water power
can create enough energy for electrolysis of water. A few other ways of creating
hydrogen is through biomass gasification and prolysis, or through enzymes like bacteria
and algae (Earth Science Australia, 2005).

One might think that water vapor from fuel cells would be bad for the
environment and agitate global warming and the greenhouse effect. Actually, water vapor
emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are not a problem because while it’s true that water
vapor is a greenhouse gas, it remains constant on average due to precipitation (Ondrus,
2005).

Fuel cell technology would be fairly hard to adapt to so in the meantime, biodiesel
fuel is a good and practical alternative. While biodiesel fuel does emit some carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide, it is significantly less than emissions from normal diesel fuel.
Biodiesel is also good because it has the same weather durability as regular diesel. When
biodiesel is home-produced, it costs about 50 to 60 cents per gallon, much less than
regular diesel fuel today. Biodiesel would be very easy to adopt because it runs in
regular diesel engines and is actually better on the engine than regular diesel fuel
(University Laboratory High School, 2005).

Yes, I've been to the ITER website several times, but viable fusion energy production seems to be a long way off, perhaps by 2060 or so at the earliest under the current R&D effort, and that's if all goes well.

Mitigation serves a purpose, if applied correctly, but I don't know if the current UN program will ultimately serve to reduce total global warming gas emissions. I'd like to see capital investments via mitigation folded back (100%) into global warming gas emission reductions. But the UN program is a start, it just needs to be pointed in the right direction.

Fuel cells are batteries, not sources of energy (you need to use electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and you get less electricity back out of the fuel cell than you put in).

Fusion is a future technology, I agree that fusion will probably take over - but in the meantime there is only Nuclear and Coal (with hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and other technologies likely to supply less than 1% of global energy - maybe they could get as high as 10% by 2050, but I doubt it - that would imply 20% annual growth in alternative energy deployment for 40 years just to get to 10%).

Hydrogen economy

The Carbon Club is still lurking in the background WRT fuel cell technology.

Don't know what to say about biofuel, other than it's a low energy density fuel.

If you haven't seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you might want too, it has an interesting take on the politics (public/private sectors) of energy alternatives. This also has some relevance on the politics of energy alternatives in the public sphere, one day it's biofuel, the next day fusion, the next day it's fuel cells, etcetera. No good answers, so change the subject, sate the public's anxiety/concerns, don't solve the "problem!"

Birth control will be the most effective technology to combat global warming, as well as ALL the rest of the world's ills. IMHO. Spline were you joking?