YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[johnbbahm]

That could be the case, in Germany it's lower than $3 per watt for installation. By the way, when the heck did Germany go and get a huge semiconductor industry for their energy infrastructure? It's insane how much they seem to be out-competing the rest of the world in that area (at least it would seem, producing quality semiconductor products in large enough quantities to make a significant industry out of it, and using them practically and for many different applications).

Actually I think the mid term solution to the worlds energy problem started at Fraunhofer university.
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
Storing summer surplus energy for winter heating is a good idea, I think their politicians got a bit ahead of themselves,
to close the nuclear reactors down. The plan has real merit, but will take years to work right.

 

[mfb]

By the way, when the heck did Germany go and get a huge semiconductor industry for their energy infrastructure?

Not at all, or at least not yet. We are mainly importing solar cells from China here.

I wonder where the 3 to 4 digit precision comes from, usually different sites vary significantly in their costs (much more than a factor of 2 for solar power, for example). That table is way too simplified to draw conclusions I think.

Negative absolute temperatures with the usual definition are understood, and they have nothing to do with power plants.

 

[jlefevre76]

Not at all, or at least not yet. We are mainly importing solar cells from China here.

Hmmm. I assumed all their (Germany's) semiconductors were a domestic product, as they seem to be leading the world in a lot of applications. Good information, thanks.

I wonder where the 3 to 4 digit precision comes from, usually different sites vary significantly in their costs (much more than a factor of 2 for solar power, for example). That table is way too simplified to draw conclusions I think.

The 3-4 digits of precision were just copied directly from my sources. I usually only care about the first digit or two on a "back of the envelope" analysis like I'm doing here. I believe it was from a .gov website, I can't remember which one, I should have kept the URL (maybe NREL or EIA or something like that). A few searches on Google and you should be able to find it.

I disagree. It has basically the most important figures when deciding which technologies are doing the best in the industry at this time. Thermodynamic efficiencies, installation costs, production costs (which I tried to get ones that include maintenance and other costs over the life of the facility). And of course, EROEI, important in deciding whether the effort of using the technology is worth it. If I left something out that you think is important, you should be specific. I did have to dumb things down a bit in terms of not distinguishing between facilities that are on the high or low end of the different figures, and just took what I assume (and hope) are averages in the U.S.

Negative absolute temperatures with the usual definition are understood, and they have nothing to do with power plants.

Yes, the results of negative absolute temperatures and our measurements of them work. However, if we're not finding ways of applying it to our energy infrastructure, that indicates to me that we haven't thought about it or disseminated it well enough that applications are being found. All the papers I've seen on it so far have been highly theoretical, without real applications. I understand it's closely connected with quantum physics (at least lasers and semiconductors), which do have applications, but other than that, I can't think of situations where it's being looked at beyond that. If it's not applied to our energy infrastructure, we either don't understand it well enough or we're not intelligent enough to use something we understand completely. I think it would be the former, rather than the latter. In any case, it seems interesting to me that based on classical thermodynamics, we should be able to get high efficiencies with photovoltaics, and it uses mechanisms that are based on a "higher law" of thermodynamics, yet, we cannot obtain efficiencies that high. Point is, I think it's time for a paradigm shift in thermodynamics and energy, and I wanted feedback on what direction the research should or will eventually take. Because of the complexities of academia, it's hard to know what direction is the most feasible in creating a discovery with immediate applications. In any case, not my area, but I figured I'd post subjects that COULD one day have direct applications in the energy sector to create additional discussion. I guess nobody could disagree that the next paradigm shift if physics will totally change our view of energy...

 

[mfb]

It has basically the most important figures when deciding which technologies are doing the best in the industry at this time.

Where are the consequences of CO2 and the other things coal power plants release, the environmental issues with coal mines and large dams, the nuclear waste management, the limited availability of hydroelectric and geothermal power, the availability/storage issues with wind and solar power, the ratio of actual to installed power for wind and solar energy, just to name a few of tons of things to consider that do not appear in that table?

The efficiency on the other hand is just useful to compare within one type of power source, e.g. solar with solar. Otherwise the absolute scale is irrelevant - does it matter what amount of energy nuclear fission releases compared to what goes to the grid? If fission would release twice times the power but the efficiency would be two times worse, nothing would change.

Installation costs have to be compared to typical lifetimes of the power plant. Are they included in production costs?
Production costs are very site-dependent, as I mentioned. Even within the US: Solar power in Florida will be much cheaper than solar power in New York because installation costs are similar but Florida has more sunshine.

and just took what I assume (and hope) are averages in the U.S.

Even if those averages are true, what does that tell about the costs of new power plants? In Germany, for example, most of the good spots for wind energy are used already - new power plants have to take worse spots, or get constructed in the North Sea (which is much more complicated than on solid ground), or replace existing wind turbines.

EROEI is relevant if it is close to 1, but the difference between 10 and 50 is just ~8%, and between 50 and 100 it is just ~2%, much smaller than all other differences and their natural variation.

Yes, the results of negative absolute temperatures and our measurements of them work. However, if we're not finding ways of applying it to our energy infrastructure, that indicates to me that we haven't thought about it or disseminated it well enough that applications are being found.

No, it just means it is not a power source at all - there is no energy you could set free. You can use energy to bring a state to a negative temperature, and then you can release that energy again. A tiny, very inefficient energy storage, but there is absolutely no way you can get energy out of that concept because you cannot violate energy conservation.

I guess nobody could disagree that the next paradigm shift if physics will totally change our view of energy...

I disagree. Sure, it could happen, but I really doubt it, and there is no way to be sure.

 

[Mike_In_Plano]

Since the Soviets have started producing nuclear weapons at a prodigious rate, I don't see any reason we shouldn't turn to breeder reactors as the power source of choice. It's not like it would be an effort to negotiate anymore.
By reprocessing our fuel, we can greatly stretch it's use while diverting the short lived elements to the waste stream. Thus, we'd have hundreds of years of relatively clean energy without CO2 and with far less cost than solar, wind, etc. And all of this can be accomplished using the technologies we already have.
In the process, we could start baking down the mountains of energetic waste products that we've been senselessly storing.

 

[myperfectworld]

I started a similar thread with about 0% interest. However, I'll go ahead and post here:

I guess I have a funny answer on this one. I think as far as our short term (and long term) advancement of science, we should focus on fission. And, I think some kind of nuclear reaction will be our long term solution as far as energy needs are concerned. We have a long ways to go before we can control nuclear reactions as well as we can control chemical reactions. However, I think in the short term, carefully comparing the figures I collected, I think I like the idea of using wind turbines to bear the main load on our grid. There are still two problems with this:
1. EMI can mess with electronics, radar. They need to find a better way to shield the EMI from the generator and lines running from the turbine.
2. It is believed either the low frequency audio or low band EMI waves can cause illness in people and animals that are nearby. Studying this problem thoroughly and finding a solution seems important before wind can be listed as "the solution."
3. During the middle of the day, the winds die down, and can't carry the grid. This means, it needs to be combined with solar or natural gas fired turbines (that have a short start-up period).

So, that's my thinking. Research wind to overcome the last few obstacles with the technology, and once those are overcome and we have the needed infrastructure, focus our research efforts on nuclear energy and anything that has direct implications or applications on nuclear reactions.

Here are the numbers I used to come to these conclusions. If any of them are way off, you can feel free to point that out.

I think you are too optimistic about the future of Fission - at least for the US. I don't think the political maturity will ever advance enough to make fission a viable contributor once the existing units have to be retired. I don't see a chance of new units other than the four under construction getting approved in the US - especially if cost over-runs and years of delays are still the norm - as these four units will prove.

I think you are underestimating solar. If we are talking the next 5 to 20 years, your costs should reflect those predicted. thus solar costs may be 1/3 of what you show in 5 years. Efficiency is nice information, but predicted cost/MWh would be more relevant. 15% vs 25% efficient is somewhat irrelevant if the fuel is free - of course comparing apples and oranges in this case, which is necessary, but also always difficult and arguable. Solar output profile - even though not dispatchable - follows many load profiles throughout the country - with the exception of late evening to early morning of course.

Wind is currently much cheaper, but causes headaches for current coal and nuclear when it peaks late at night or blows all night long. Coal and gas will improve at cycling however, and help integrate wind and solar - even up to 40 or 50% penetration within a few decades.

 

[Mike_In_Plano]

It is unfortunate. Utilizing energy sources that are expensive and erode the GNP has become "palatable" thing to do.
On the global market:
- We cannot compete on labor.
- We cannot count on knowledge base inertia or investment in scientific ventures.
- The ability to produce semiconductors and tight tolerance machining is no longer reserved to America (close to 1/2 of semiconductor fab occurs in Taiwan)
- We obsess of American innovation but believe it is represented by the continual evolvement of PDAs and phones which is driven more by cheap labor, semiconductor advances, and marketing.

With so many strikes against our nation and increasing military budgets in China and Russia to address, we desperately need a foot up wherever possible. Energy cost is all pervasive. Extracting natural gas has become the temporary fix. But it comes with with two ugly caveats:
1 - It is a limited resource. Once it's gone, no amount of prayer will make it come back.
2 - It's a resource that's costing us more than is immediately apparent. None dare admit that fracking creates paths to contaminate ground water or that fracking is destabilizing the geology of entire cities. Irving TX, a historically stable zone, now has earthquakes. Added with the considerable stress caused by the hygroscopic clay of the area means that 10's or even 100's of thousands are exposed to foundation destruction in return for a limited amount of natural gas.

I wonder how many pro-solar posts are by people that have invested 20-40 thousand dollars to become solar independent. I wonder how many just want things "fixed" for free.

Fission is a fix that has proven payoff. Breeding the fuel and reprocessing addresses the waste stream and ensures the long-term viability of the process.

I find it unfortunate that marketers, dreamers, and politicians looking for election finance are actively ignoring the need for GNP. They are actively destroying the quality of life for the current generation and those to come.

 

[mheslep]

I don't see a chance of new units other than the four under construction getting approved in the US - especially if cost over-runs and years of delays are still the norm - as these four units will prove.

Five under construction. Two in GA, two in SC, one in TN. The one in TN is on schedule to go live at the end of this year. If there are 70 some reactors under construction around the world at this moment, why can't more eventually be built in the US?

"integrate wind and solar - even up to 40 or 50% penetration within a few decades."

The highest share in the world is Portugal with 27% share of electric generation from wind, and Portugal has a great deal of hydro to help enable the use of intermittent wind power. Portugal's residential electric price was $0.25/kWh in 2011. As no country has come any where close to 40-50% with wind and solar combined, what's the basis for that prediction?

 

[jim hardy]

Behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy.
As we kill off our big sources , coal, oil and nuclear, we pare back our ability to produce and compete.

It's that simple.

Chinese solar cells are manufactured with power from Chinese coal plants.
Taken to logical extreme - mankind will someday have to exist day to day with what energy we can eke out of the sun.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, though a unit of GDP continuously requires less and less energy. Largest US company by market cap makes iPhones not energy intensive cars and planes, steel is 75% recycled in the US and so on.

 

[OmCheeto]

...mankind will someday have to exist day to day with what energy we can eke out of the sun.

That's worth living an extra 50 years to watch.

 

[Mike_In_Plano]

That's hilarious. Our GDP requires less energy because it will be saved by an over-marketed Chinese made PDA / phone,which will quickly reach technological saturation / second sourcing.
It's no wonder that every willing adult doesn't have a job involving Apple products.

 

[johnbbahm]

Behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy.
As we kill off our big sources , coal, oil and nuclear, we pare back our ability to produce and compete.

It's that simple.

Chinese solar cells are manufactured with power from Chinese coal plants.
Taken to logical extreme - mankind will someday have to exist day to day with what energy we can eke out of the sun.

There is a lot of energy coming from the sun, the problem is that it is low density.
Concentration and storage of energy, are the real Engineering challenges.
I once saw someone talk about photovoltaic panels as expensive batteries,
that they never produced the amount of Kwh necessary to make them.
At the time, I had stated that when the factories are run with their own products, we will
know the curves have crossed. I think the curves have already crossed.
Storage becomes the next issue.
I think man made hydrocarbon fuels offer the only viable path at this time.

 

[myperfectworld]

Five under construction. Two in GA, two in SC, one in TN. The one in TN is on schedule to go live at the end of this year. If there are 70 some reactors under construction around the world at this moment, why can't more eventually be built in the US?
The highest share in the world is Portugal with 27% share of electric generation from wind, and Portugal has a great deal of hydro to help enable the use of intermittent wind power. Portugal's residential electric price was $0.25/kWh in 2011. As no country has come any where close to 40-50% with wind and solar combined, what's the basis for that prediction?

,I was saying 40 - 50% penetration is possible in 1 - 2 decades. Not probable. However, in some regions this may be possible even sooner, Were you aware that Colorado area had 61% renewable energy penetration for over 1 hour a few months ago. May not seem like much to some, but to others, 1000's of hours per year at 50% in 2 decades does not seem like a stretch. Much more likely than 3% fusion! I wasn't aware of the 5th reactor under construction, That's good

 

[myperfectworld]

Behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy.
As we kill off our big sources , coal, oil and nuclear, we pare back our ability to produce and compete.

It's that simple.

Chinese solar cells are manufactured with power from Chinese coal plants.
Taken to logical extreme - mankind will someday have to exist day to day with what energy we can eke out of the sun.

Last I heard, energy growth in some areas is flat, even though economy is growing. Add some storage technology improvement, and all of the sudden you can shift 1000's of MW or even GW from off peak to peak. If LEDs drop in price by 75% (3 years out?, 6 years? likely in between.)- probably keep demand in US flat another 3 years while economy grows!

 

[mheslep]

,...Colorado area had 61% renewable energy penetration for over 1 hour a few months ago. ...

Intermittent power sources like wind and solar can supply most of the load for a time, that's no surprise, though I think you'll find that most of these claims are made during a particularly low demand period, say, on a weekend and at night. It is also almost certain that the same intermittent sources produced 0% of the load at some other point in time, but these periods don't make the news. So the relevant question is can the intermittent power sources provide power economically. Given all the existing coal and gas and hydro power along with all its transmission must remain in place for the 0% times from intermittent sources, I don't see how they lower the average cost of electricity, or even keep it static.

colorado electricity for Oct 2014
gas: 27%
coal: 55%
hydro: 2%
other renewable (biomass, wind, solar): 16%

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO#tabs-4

 

[jim hardy]

Renewable is funded by demanding that utilities provide it. Usually they buy it from independent producers for about twice what they could generate it themselves with nonrenewable. The independents get great tax breaks for building renewable.
Some are allowed to recover the extra cost from customers who want to "buy green", others just pass it along to everybody.

My feelings are mixed. I like to see incentives to innovate. I don't like politicians messing with the electric grid.

Follow the money and you'll be surprised how much foreign investment is going into US wind farms and transmission lines.
Those tax incentives go to non-us business.

I don't know why GE is the only US supplier of windmills. Why aren't BorgWarner, GM, Penberthy-Houdaille, York et al in on the bonanza like manufacturers in Germany China Sweden Norway Spain and Italy are?

i don't understand.

 

[OmCheeto]

Are Yale & NCSU valid sources of information?

e360 digest [Yale]
For homeowners in 46 of the 50 largest cities in the U.S., investing in a residential solar power system would yield better returns than putting money in the stock market, according to an analysis by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University[NCSU].

What's the old saying? Money talks, and something else walks.

 

[mheslep]

Many things would be good investments if 30-50% of the cost were paid for by fellow citizens.

 

[OmCheeto]

Many things would be good investments if 30-50% of the cost were paid for by fellow citizens.

I like my money as much as anyone, but there are few other places I'd rather see it go to.

Anyways, I saw an article today:

Portland is now powered by water pipes and flushing toilets
2/21/2015

Portland residents can now generate green electricity simply by turning on their water taps and flushing their toilets. Fast Company reports that the Oregon city is using a state-of-the art system to capture energy from water flowing through the city’s pipelines. Small turbines installed inside the pipelines are turned by the flowing water, sending energy into a generator and off into the power grid.

Although it wouldn't work everywhere, I think most gravity fed municipal water systems would benefit.

 

[mheslep]

Not about your money, but about control over other people's money.

 

[OmCheeto]

Not about your money, but about control over other people's money.

Everybody wants to rule the world.

But, then again, perhaps I don't understand your comments. Is there another thread devoted to your topic?
I'm sensing; "I know where I want my money spent!"

Reminds me a bit of a discussion we had at the OEVA, regarding an article written recently by Bjorn Lomborg.

Electric car benefits? Just myths: Column
Bjørn Lomborg 6:13 p.m. EST February 22, 2015
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.

We collectively, shredded him, IMHO.

-----
Mentors: Ok to delete. I'm currently working on a thesis on what drives people, and I'm saving all my thoughts.
@Doc Al , @gneill , @Chestermiller ,
and @Pythagorean, as you seem to share some of my suspicions, and concerns.
ugh! Stop it!
@berkeman , @russ_watters

 

[jlefevre76]

Where are the consequences of CO2 and the other things coal power plants release, the environmental issues with coal mines and large dams, the nuclear waste management, the limited availability of hydroelectric and geothermal power, the availability/storage issues with wind and solar power, the ratio of actual to installed power for wind and solar energy, just to name a few of tons of things to consider that do not appear in that table?

You are right, I should have included that, at least on this forum. The reason I didn't is because I'm trying to show that in terms of cost and what makes sense in the context
of the eventual end of fossil fuels, we will need to switch anyway, and which one looks like it's the best to switch to.

The efficiency on the other hand is just useful to compare within one type of power source, e.g. solar with solar. Otherwise the absolute scale is irrelevant - does it matter what amount of energy nuclear fission releases compared to what goes to the grid? If fission would release twice times the power but the efficiency would be two times worse, nothing would change.

In terms of "free" sources of energy like wind, solar, hydro, it is useful to know how good of a job they do, but not really relevant necessarily to the main point. So, I guess
I could have excluded it, but it seemed like good information to add on the side.

Installation costs have to be compared to typical lifetimes of the power plant. Are they included in production costs?
Production costs are very site-dependent, as I mentioned. Even within the US: Solar power in Florida will be much cheaper than solar power in New York because installation costs are similar but Florida has more sunshine.
Even if those averages are true, what does that tell about the costs of new power plants? In Germany, for example, most of the good spots for wind energy are used already - new power plants have to take worse spots, or get constructed in the North Sea (which is much more complicated than on solid ground), or replace existing wind turbines.

Cost per W is installation costs. Cost per kW hr is assumed to be the total life cycle cost, at least those are the numbers I was trying to get. I took the highest ones I could
find, assuming lower ones were neglecting certain factors.

No, it just means it is not a power source at all - there is no energy you could set free. You can use energy to bring a state to a negative temperature, and then you can release that energy again. A tiny, very inefficient energy storage, but there is absolutely no way you can get energy out of that concept because you cannot violate energy conservation.
I disagree. Sure, it could happen, but I really doubt it, and there is no way to be sure.

That's not what I was implying, at least not in terms of negative absolute temperatures. The only implications that has is the possible violation of Carnot efficiency, in theory, not violation of conservation of energy. Dark matter and dark energy, on the other hand, tell us that violation of conservation of energy (at least in the context we're used to),
could occur or have ways found around it (though there would probably still be restrictions like sum of energy and dark energy are conserved). My bet is, when we do experience the next paradigm shift in science, we'll find there are still limitations, just in a different way than what we think. I'm not saying I necessarily espouse that we'll find ways around the classical laws of thermodynamics (though both of these fields directly relate and directly contradict the classical laws), but I am saying there has to be something else that can be discovered and applied, and is it worth it to spend money on that in the short term, or do people have ideas, plans for these areas as they related to energy in the long run.

I think you are too optimistic about the future of Fission - at least for the US. I don't think the political maturity will ever advance enough to make fission a viable contributor once the existing units have to be retired. I don't see a chance of new units other than the four under construction getting approved in the US - especially if cost over-runs and years of delays are still the norm - as these four units will prove.

Yeah, that is too bad. Nuclear offers a lot of promise in terms of using many technologies we already have down (like the Rankine cycle). It's also kind of sad how people
have an unconditional fear of nuclear power, thinking it's worse than other energy options. There is no other process we have access to at this time that makes use of
fuels with higher energy density, that's probably why it makes a great option for subs and carriers.

I think you are underestimating solar. If we are talking the next 5 to 20 years, your costs should reflect those predicted. thus solar costs may be 1/3 of what you show in 5 years. Efficiency is nice information, but predicted cost/MWh would be more relevant. 15% vs 25% efficient is somewhat irrelevant if the fuel is free - of course comparing apples and oranges in this case, which is necessary, but also always difficult and arguable. Solar output profile - even though not dispatchable - follows many load profiles throughout the country - with the exception of late evening to early morning of course.

Perhaps, solar has a lot of promise, and if the costs of solar continue to fall, we will likely all turn to it as a solution for our needs. And, that's a good point, as the costs fall,
it will become a better option, which is not reflected in that table.

Wind is currently much cheaper, but causes headaches for current coal and nuclear when it peaks late at night or blows all night long. Coal and gas will improve at cycling however, and help integrate wind and solar - even up to 40 or 50% penetration within a few decades.

That really is key to keeping the grid stable, as wind and solar depend on weather conditions. Dynamic adjustment of existing power plants is important. I knew natural gas
turbines were dynamically adjustable, I didn't know coal plants were working to do the same.

Thanks for all the feedback, good to know people are thinking about this and hopefully voting and participating in the political process accordingly.

 

[bluespanishlady]

As an ordinary citizen (someone who doesn't not work in the field) the fact that we are talking about doing something about this is of some comfort. I do think we need to be more aggressive.

First, I do agree we need to eliminate the use of all carbon based fuels.

In any proposed solution/plan, the cost and energy required for the production of components as well as the environmental impact needs to be factored in.

For example, the oil industry's new baby, fracking for natural gas, has very negative effects both on the natural environment where the sand used in fracking is mined and in the places where this sand is used in drilling for natural gas.

Wind turbines take up a lot of land, space cost a lot to maintain, chop up innocent eagles flying in their path, and have components built of steel which takes a great amount of energy to produce.

Solar panels are made with plastics and other fossil fuel related components, need to be maintained , and are relatively short-lived.

In South America forests are being cleared to plant sugar cane for ethanol production. Not an energy answer I would ask for.

To the person suggesting more ethanol use, please correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding (and I also live in the Midwest) that the production of ethanol consumes more energy that its worth, not to mention it takes the land out of food production. The use of polluting nitrates-- as well as animal fertilizers --that are involved in corns production need to be considered-- especially given the negative effects of run off in our rivers and streams and contamination of our ground water.

Nuclear power? pretty good all round, but what about the waste? how do we safely store it? Is there a way we can safely use or recycle the waste?

What about using the bouyant force of the ocean?

What about using a more direct use of the sun's energy --one maybe that incorporates a gold plated dish positioned beyond the Earth's atmosphere? Something that would capture the suns full spectrum of light and make it available for Earth's use. ( like the idea of nikola tesla except on steriods )

On a smaller level, we need to produce appliances and tools and vehicles that can be repaired or have parts interchanged rather than the whole things having to be replaced.
Our appliances and tools which are made out of non renewable resources are built to expire or are built only to be replaced outright rather than be repaired. I have discovered recently that many of our battery operated tools are deigned so that batteries can't be switched out and each new upgrade requires the old tools to be tossed and new ones purchased. We don't have a lot of interchangeable parts for most appliances and tools. Even tire mountings on vehicles are so different.

Our economy which is based on consumpton thrives on the individual use and not reuse, on individual variations that prohibit sharing and changing out parts. Do we need to rethink this aspect of capitalism so that it does not encourage waste and abuse of our energy resources? I think that a big problem is ignorance among the general public about science and the planet and these very real problems. We have a cultural problem in so far as science is not valued and respected as much as say--religion. We need scientists engaged in schools and other public forums talking to and convincing regular citizens that these problems are real, are serious, and need to be addressed asap, and can be solved by those people most familiar with the elements involved--ie scientists. This is true if we are to get what needs to be done done. Funding will be required for research and implementation and given the wealth and power of those entities who represent big oil and gas, funding will only come if the regular citizens understand what is at stake and exert enough pressure and insist we address and fund scientists who work to solve this crisis.

Last but not least, the problem of population growth absolutely needs to be addressed. As another cultural hangup, this country seems unable to even consider the possibility that this planet is overpopulated and that overpopulation continues to get worse as time goes on. We are going to have to deal with this element of the energy crisis as well. How many people can this Earth we all live on really support while at the same time allowing people to live fully as human beings?

 

[mfb]

You are right, I should have included that, at least on this forum.

And if you do that, you end up with tons of publications.

Cost per W is installation costs. Cost per kW hr is assumed to be the total life cycle cost, at least those are the numbers I was trying to get. I took the highest ones I could find, assuming lower ones were neglecting certain factors.

The highest ones are often manipulated. A "nice" double/triple-counting trick you can find in some German articles against nuclear power:
- consider all taxes paid as costs of nuclear power
- consider all investments of the government as costs of nuclear power
- make up some fictional higher tax rate (specifically for nuclear power), consider the difference to this tax rate as subsidy of nuclear power, add it to the costs of nuclear power
And of course, the usual tricks:
- assume some very pessimistic lifetime of power plants. Bonus points if your own lobbyism was responsible that reactors got shut down earlier than necessary.
- calculate the average CO2 emitted to produce electricity in Germany (averaged over all power plants, including a lot of coal). Assume the pumps of the power plant are operated with grid electricity and claim nuclear power would be responsible for CO2 emission this way.
- ...

Don't trust extreme estimates in any direction.

The only implications that has is the possible violation of Carnot efficiency, in theory, not violation of conservation of energy.

Source? Systems at negative temperature can give a nice efficiency, but again you have to prepare them first which takes at least the same effort you can get out afterwards. This is true for both energy and entropy.

Dark matter and dark energy, on the other hand, tell us that violation of conservation of energy (at least in the context we're used to),

No they do not.

(though both of these fields directly relate and directly contradict the classical laws)

They do not. Actually, classical thermodynamics is used to study the distribution of dark matter.

Please stop claiming things that are completely wrong - there might be forums where you can get away with that because no one cares, but not here.

What about using the bouyant force of the ocean?

Not an energy source, you don't have gas or other light materials available deep down in the ocean. And throwing in lots of heavy things to sink down is not very helpful either.

What would a gold plated dish in space do, apart from being a bad mirror and heating up a bit?

On a smaller level, we need to produce appliances and tools and vehicles that can be repaired or have parts interchanged rather than the whole things having to be replaced.

3D printing could help there, for example.

 

[jim hardy]

Last but not least, the problem of population growth absolutely needs to be addressed. As another cultural hangup, this country seems unable to even consider the possibility that this planet is overpopulated and that overpopulation continues to get worse as time goes on. We are going to have to deal with this element of the energy crisis as well. How many people can this Earth we all live on really support while at the same time allowing people to live fully as human beings?

"One billion well-fed, creative human beings are a far happier and worthwhile load for our good planet than six billion starving, half-mad wretches.

We forget that California used to produce enough oil for the whole world.

see also https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/maximum-sustainable-earth-population.470256/

 

[mheslep]

Modernize child mortality rates and observe that fertility rates fall. In N. America, East Asia, Europe/Central Asia the fertility rate is well below replacement (2.1), soon so too Latin America. It takes some time for the changes in the fertility rate to work its way into population growth, but it is inevitable.

 

[bluespanishlady]

And if you do that, you end up with tons of publications.

The highest ones are often manipulated. A "nice" double/triple-counting trick you can find in some German articles against nuclear power:
- consider all taxes paid as costs of nuclear power
- consider all investments of the government as costs of nuclear power
- make up some fictional higher tax rate (specifically for nuclear power), consider the difference to this tax rate as subsidy of nuclear power, add it to the costs of nuclear power
And of course, the usual tricks:
- assume some very pessimistic lifetime of power plants. Bonus points if your own lobbyism was responsible that reactors got shut down earlier than necessary.
- calculate the average CO2 emitted to produce electricity in Germany (averaged over all power plants, including a lot of coal). Assume the pumps of the power plant are operated with grid electricity and claim nuclear power would be responsible for CO2 emission this way.
- ...

Don't trust extreme estimates in any direction.

Source? Systems at negative temperature can give a nice efficiency, but again you have to prepare them first which takes at least the same effort you can get out afterwards. This is true for both energy and entropy.No they do not.They do not. Actually, classical thermodynamics is used to study the distribution of dark matter.

Please stop claiming things that are completely wrong - there might be forums where you can get away with that because no one cares, but not here.Not an energy source, you don't have gas or other light materials available deep down in the ocean. And throwing in lots of heavy things to sink down is not very helpful either.

What would a gold plated dish in space do, apart from being a bad mirror and heating up a bit?
3D printing could help there, for example.

okay first the dish outside the atmosphere of Earth is not to be a mirror but a collector of the suns full spectrum ; I used gold as an example because of its incorruptiblity; I do realize this is a far out idea, but maybe we should look at answers outside our backyard and the Earth itself. I mean no disrespect to anyone, I am just throwing out thoughts here. Sometimes a little off the wall thinking can prove useful.

As far as using the bouyant force of the ocean I am referring directly to bouyancy itself as a force that could be harnessed.

 

[bluespanishlady]

It's 100 per cent reliable and an endless pollution free resource - tidal power.
Initially, it would cost a fortune to build enough dams in the sea,and they would be
costly to maintain, but in the very long run, they would be worth the trouble.
You'd get a lot of hassle from marine ecologists though and people who like
a nice view over the sea.

tidal power and the force of the oceans bouyancy could both be harnassed , but with the later there would be no need to build dams

 

[bluespanishlady]

No real solution

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html .

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

'Living locally' as much as possible will be a help and maybe even an absolute necessity. We definitely are going to need more co-operation between peoples and governments, but we will adapt and change one way or another. Either this will come as a reasoned choice considered and planned out before the point of crisis peaks, or as a crazy more panicked reaction when the crisis hits us all very hard because we have stuck our heads in the sand or put off the inevitable.