Energy independence for the US (or any other country)

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter edpell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Independence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the best strategies for the US (or any country) to achieve 50% energy generation from renewable sources or long-lasting alternatives within the next 20 years. Participants explore various energy sources, economic implications, and the feasibility of different approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants advocate for photovoltaic (PV) systems in the US Southwest combined with water-to-hydrogen storage as a viable solution for renewable energy generation.
  • Others express skepticism about the economic feasibility of large-scale renewable energy investments, citing concerns over national budget constraints.
  • Algae is proposed by some as a promising alternative for energy independence, with potential for job creation and economic benefits.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of solar energy, including land use and capacity factors, suggesting that renewables may not meet the energy demands of heavy industry.
  • Some participants argue for the exploration of oil drilling in northern Alaska as a cheaper alternative to foreign oil, while others question the overall impact of such measures on energy independence.
  • There is a discussion about the efficiency of algae compared to solar energy, particularly regarding fuel production capabilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the best methods for achieving energy independence, with no consensus reached. There are competing perspectives on the viability of renewable sources versus fossil fuel extraction, as well as differing opinions on the economic implications of these strategies.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions regarding the efficiency and scalability of renewable energy technologies, as well as the economic and environmental impacts of proposed solutions. There are unresolved questions about the long-term feasibility of different energy sources and their ability to meet national energy demands.

  • #121
zomgwtf said:
Really, we'll run out of uranium to use for nuclear energy? That's weird, I thought there was so much uranium around to use (especially from the oceans) that it would provide us with enough power for an EXTREMELY long time.
In combination with Thorium, yes there is enough for centuries.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #122
Astronuc said:
Interesting project and interesting array of guest speakers.

FYI - http://energyontrial.org/

http://energyontrial.org/Speakers

Ultimately, finite sources will deplete, so I expect that one day, solar and wind, and maybe hydro, will dominate the energy portfolio, and perhaps geothermal will provide some small fraction.
Just tidbits there. Is there a forthcoming study or longer video from these folks, or perhaps I missed it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
mheslep said:
In combination with Thorium, yes there is enough for centuries.

Weird, I remember seeing numbers somewheres which suggested that it would be more along the lines of millenia if we increase our power consumption by a large factor, or at the current rate for just over 1 million years. That's just from the uranium that's in the oceans.
 
  • #124
mheslep said:
Just tidbits there. Is there a forthcoming study or longer video from these folks, or perhaps I missed it.
I found the link to energyontrial from an INL source. There is apparently a documentary in the works.

While there is substantial amounts of uranium and thorium, it is nevertheless finite. Certainly, it will last for centuries, but then what after that. What will be the energy source future generations?

The other side of the coin is demand, which can be reduced through greater efficiency and/or reduced consumption.
 
  • #125
zomgwtf said:
Weird, I remember seeing numbers somewheres which suggested that it would be more along the lines of millenia if we increase our power consumption by a large factor, or at the current rate for just over 1 million years. That's just from the uranium that's in the oceans.
Well who knows what the demand of 9 billion people will be that far out. Generally though, the estimate rests on fuel type assumptions and goes very roughly as follows:

o If the assumption is nuclear power continues as currently and is based only on fissionable U235 enriched fuel ( ie a small fraction of all Uranium) from only land based ores then the answer is a century or so, maybe even just decades.
o Add a few more decades with reprocessing of waste.
o Use the U235 in _all_ the oceans (a big if), then there is enough for multiple centuries.
o Use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_material" fuels including Th and U238, then multiply the above by 50-100X.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #126
Astronuc said:
While there is substantial amounts of uranium and thorium, it is nevertheless finite. Certainly, it will last for centuries, but then what after that. What will be the energy source future generations?
Well if the species can't get a handle on fusion in say five centuries from now then we all deserve to go the Soylent Green route and let the Chimps have a try. :rolleyes:

soylent_green_fsmcdvol6no81.jpg
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 1K ·
50
Replies
1K
Views
404K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K