Philosophical Vegan Forum

I'm interested to learn what you think the future of energy is. I don't think that solar is ready for prime time yet for commercial purposes. So far, what I have read, solar panels break down within 7 years which makes it less economically viable. It has been a while since I have read about that so take it easy on me Brimstone . so what tech do you see as promising. Nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc...

Nuclear is and always has been the solution to cheap, clean energy wherever there is a grid and highly concentrated demand.

The benefit of solar is that it can create clean DC energy on-site during the day without power distribution infrastructure.

Once you factor in the need for batteries, or you want AC power, solar isn't useful for any high wattage applications (like during the night). it's also nearly useless for distribution.
It's fine to run a few LEDs for lighting a house or road (not IN the road itself, which is absurd- traditional solar emergency road lighting, which exists now), it's great for running security cameras and small low-wattage electronics, but it's not a centralized power solution.

Hydro is fine when you have the resources there- like a large waterfall or river. We already mostly take advantage of that. There's not a lot of growth potential there in the developed world. It's not a real energy solution.

Wind is useful for generating a moderate AC power source which is more or less continuously available off the grid except for during storms or when the wind is abnormally still.

Comparing it to nuclear is absurd- wind is not the solution to the world's energy needs. If you're talking about a city, you need a nuclear power plant.

Wind is fine for the energy needs of a farm house, where it's inefficient to transfer power via a grid, and you can't exactly have a small stand-alone nuclear power plant.


On the grid, in a densely populated city:

Of course hydro-power IF you have a source, and otherwise nuclear.
Use hot water for heating needs (generated at the power source and distributed by pipes, as they do in some places in Northern Europe).

Off the grid:

Combination wind an solar for electric. Solar for DC needs (lighting and processor), wind for AC needs (running motors; fans, heat pumps, cooling, refrigeration).
Natural gas/methane for heating and cooking needs (which can be produced on site, sustainably, through decomposition of organic matter either biologically or through pyrolysis and catalytic processes).

Power distribution infrastructure is too inefficient for low density populations, which makes wind and solar affordable compared to the price of maintenance and the losses in distribution over great distances.

I see nuclear energy as a short term solution to reduce CO2 emissions, until we establish a fully green energy solution. There are some dangers connected to nuclear energy, and that's why we shouldn't continue relying on it for too long. Wind and solar can and must be applied where it is beneficial, but is not going to be the total solution. I'm betting on new technologies that are far more efficient, and some great ideas already have been developed. So I would put my money in science as government. Energy storage is also something that can be made far more efficient through science.

Volenta wrote:I see nuclear energy as a short term solution to reduce CO2 emissions, until we establish a fully green energy solution.

Nuclear energy is pretty green.
Waste disposal is a trivial matter, almost as greatly exaggerated as the disposal issues of human garbage- we aren't running out of land fills, and there are plenty of places to put nuclear waste that are very safe.

Volenta wrote:There are some dangers connected to nuclear energy, and that's why we shouldn't continue relying on it for too long.

Like the dangers of flying in planes when compared to cars, the dangers of nuclear power are greatly overstated due to their dramatic and headline grabbing natures.

What do you want to bet that more people have been killed falling from wind turbines in attempt to maintain them than in nuclear accidents in the past decade?
Or that more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels?

Volenta wrote:Wind and solar can and must be applied where it is beneficial, but is not going to be the total solution.

The problem is, there are very few situations where that is the case. Most of the human population is urbanized, where those things are virtually useless.

Volenta wrote:I'm betting on new technologies that are far more efficient, and some great ideas already have been developed.

What do you mean?

There are limits on the efficiency of wind and solar panels based on thermodynamics.

The big issue is energy distribution long distance.

Volenta wrote:Energy storage is also something that can be made far more efficient through science.

A little tiny bit. But also more expensive (infrastructure wise), and substantially more dangerous.
Again, thermodynamic limits.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Nuclear energy is pretty green.
Waste disposal is a trivial matter, almost as greatly exaggerated as the disposal issues of human garbage- we aren't running out of land fills, and there are plenty of places to put nuclear waste that are very safe.

Maybe you're right that there are plenty of places, but it isn't always placed on safe places. Look at the disasters that have happened already (with the tsunami in Japan for example). But location could be fixed of course, but you would still have the dangers involved in transport. You also have to store it for a very long time before it decays.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Like the dangers of flying in planes when compared to cars, the dangers of nuclear power are greatly overstated due to their dramatic and headline grabbing natures.

What do you want to bet that more people have been killed falling from wind turbines in attempt to maintain them than in nuclear accidents in the past decade?
Or that more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels?

I think the (potential) dangers are not comparable with people that have died from falling of wind turbines and roofs. And the plane-car analogy is only saying that cars are far too unsafe, which I'm also concerned about.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The problem is, there are very few situations where that is the case. Most of the human population is urbanized, where those things are virtually useless.

I agree, that's why we need another solution. Wind and solar can only be applied on the small scale.

brimstoneSalad wrote:What do you mean?

There are limits on the efficiency of wind and solar panels based on thermodynamics.

The big issue is energy distribution long distance.

I mean completely different energy sources. Some ideas that people are working on is turning CO2 back into fuel and getting energy out of the earth from bacteria using plants, carbon (as conductor) and electrodes. And there are probably many other ideas as well.

brimstoneSalad wrote:A little tiny bit. But also more expensive (infrastructure wise), and substantially more dangerous.
Again, thermodynamic limits.

A lot of energy is wasted because it can not be stored properly. So I think there could be done at least something in terms of storage.

Volenta wrote: Maybe you're right that there are plenty of places, but it isn't always placed on safe places. Look at the disasters that have happened already (with the tsunami in Japan for example).

People do stupid things and blatantly violate regulations, of course. All of the nuclear disasters in history were easily preventable. That said, even with human carelessness, it's still safer and cleaner.

But let's look at Fukushima. Do you know what the death toll stands at?

*drumroll please*

Zero.
There were 37 physical injuries, as far as I can tell unrelated to the radiation, and two people were hospitalized with radiation burns (clean up workers).

Nobody dead. Probably won't be anybody dead. Not from the radiation.

How about Chernobyl, an even more severe disaster?

Thus far, it seems to still be in the single digits from actual radiation exposure related cancer.

More people have died by worrying themselves to death over radiation exposure than were killed by the radiation.

It is literally that absurd.

You're more likely to die from depression and suicide, and other causes, shortening your lifespan because you were worried about radiation than from radiation if you were affected by the worst nuclear disaster in history.

Wait, what? Yeah. Let that sink in for a bit.

What's the moral of the story? Don't worry about the radiation. It's actually not that big of a deal.

Volenta wrote: But location could be fixed of course

Or, you know, we could just keep doing what we're doing too, since the death toll attributed to the history of nuclear energy is minuscule, and we've learned from our mistakes anyway. Due to public pressure, nuclear power has more oversight than anything else- even unreasonable levels in some regards.

They can store a drum in my living room if they want. I have extra space.

Really, not a big deal. They're so overly cautious about this stuff it's crazy.

Volenta wrote: but you would still have the dangers involved in transport.

Like?

Volenta wrote: You also have to store it for a very long time before it decays.

Not really. That's the beauty of radiation.

If it's dangerous, it decays quickly, if it decays slowly, it's not dangerous.

Half-life of radioactive elements is directly proportional to their danger.
Almost everything is radioactive- just with very very long half-lives.

It just takes a few years to make it pretty safe. But they'll probably store it for a hundred years anyway, just to be excessively cautious. That is not to say that you really have to store it for so long.

Volenta wrote: I think the (potential) dangers are not comparable with people that have died from falling of wind turbines and roofs. And the plane-car analogy is only saying that cars are far too unsafe, which I'm also concerned about.

I'm hard pressed to find information on how many people have died maintaining and manufacturing wind turbines, but I'd really bet it's more than nuclear.
Solar panels, certainly more than nuclear. People fall of roofs, that's just what they do, it's an inevitable part of installing stuff.

Here you go, first Google result:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ohb-fac ... Solar.aspx

Apparently, this is a growing problem of real concern.

You know a great way to prevent deaths from solar panel installers falling off roofs? Nuclear power.
I bet we could have a disaster every year, and still save lives.

The difference in magnitude of these dangers is amazing; and the fact that the public somehow thinks solar or wind are safer than nuclear is baffling, and could only be achieved thanks to our media's sensationalism.

Falling off a roof just isn't interesting.
Being hit by a falling solar panel, not terribly interesting.
Accident in a factory manufacturing solar panels? Nobody wants to know that.

Nuclear DISASTER!!! Sex me up Fukushima! It's time to sell some newspapers!

Sorry, it's just so absurd.

Volenta wrote: I agree, that's why we need another solution. Wind and solar can only be applied on the small scale.

Not small scale, but distributed scale. The idea is to avoid power lines. Which, incidentally, the maintenance of probably also kills a lot of people. And are extremely expensive.

Take down power lines in rural areas, and power homes on solar and wind- and you'll find it's a reasonable trade-off.
The reason we don't is probably that government mainly foots the bill for that infrastructure. Where they don't, out in the middle of nowhere farms already run their houses on solar and wind pretty well.

Volenta wrote: I mean completely different energy sources. Some ideas that people are working on is turning CO2 back into fuel

... I'll go easy on you, and say that's not an energy source. That's a means of energy storage- and a way to transport energy. It's chemical energy storage, and it's not very efficient.

You have to use an actual source of power - like nuclear - to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then use that hydrogen to convert the captured CO2 into fuel.
It's very energy intensive.

Better just to use the nuclear power to power homes directly, rather than mucking around with that nonsense as a middleman.

Volenta wrote: and getting energy out of the earth from bacteria using plants, carbon (as conductor) and electrodes. And there are probably many other ideas as well.

There are many, many "ideas" which are founded on scientific illiteracy. Things that actually work or even obey thermodynamics are another matter entirely.

If you can link me to some things you think are viable, I can debunk them, but I can't really keep up with all of them.

Volenta wrote: A lot of energy is wasted because it can not be stored properly. So I think there could be done at least something in terms of storage.

Something, but not much. There are thermodynamic limits on the efficiency of energy conversion.

The idea that "we're losing half our power to storage, what if we just made better storage and got 99% back?" is unfortunately founded on scientific ignorance.
Don't pin your hopes on much improved energy storage.

Didn't know that it caused only a few deaths and injuries. Thanks for clarifying.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Volenta wrote: but you would still have the dangers involved in transport.

Like?

A concern is that is might get in the wrong hands (terrorist groups) and can be used against us. Transport can be dangerous in that sense too. I think the potential dangers that could be done with the nuclear waste is the biggest concern.

brimstoneSalad wrote:... I'll go easy on you, and say that's not an energy source. That's a means of energy storage- and a way to transport energy. It's chemical energy storage, and it's not very efficient.

You have to use an actual source of power - like nuclear - to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then use that hydrogen to convert the captured CO2 into fuel.
It's very energy intensive.

Better just to use the nuclear power to power homes directly, rather than mucking around with that nonsense as a middleman.

It's not a source, but a way of reducing the need for a greater energy source. And it's something that's at least more sustainable than putting more CO2 in the air by relying on fossil fuels. You're right that it requires energy to convert, but from what I've heard it can be done with very little (just simple wind/solar energy). It's not really a middleman, but you're closing the circle.

brimstoneSalad wrote:There are many, many "ideas" which are founded on scientific illiteracy. Things that actually work or even obey thermodynamics are another matter entirely.

If you can link me to some things you think are viable, I can debunk them, but I can't really keep up with all of them.

I just putted forward some ideas that have been proposed. I did not intend to say that these (or others) are perfect solutions, but that progress is made and that there lies some serious potential. It's also possible that a combination of these new innovations can help us feed our energy needs.

I heard a lot of good things about Thorium. That combined with Fusion energy, if we were to get that going, would be amazing.

I just wish that Nuclear, fusion and throium was the worlds main source of power right now. It would change quiet a lot.

Volenta wrote:Didn't know that it caused only a few deaths and injuries. Thanks for clarifying.

No problem. It's a common misconception.

The fallout after WWII was also not as serious as people expected it to be, although obviously the bombs themselves did a substantial amount of damage and cost a number of human lives- that was a different matter and quite deliberate (also a different kind of reaction, with much more enriched uranium, which is not possible with fission reaction grade uranium).

Volenta wrote:A concern is that is might get in the wrong hands (terrorist groups) and can be used against us.

This concern is also greatly exaggerated- though not quite as exaggerated as the dangers of meltdown or leakage.


Here's the thing: Terrorists are human beings, and while it may not seem like it, they have consciences too. Conspiracies of this scale, to harm people, almost always fail because somebody develops a conscience and the word gets out.
The more complex a conspiracy is, the more time, and the more people, it takes to make it happen.

A dirty bomb is much more complex than the standard shrapnel human detonated bomb (which unlike a dirty bomb, can be built by one lunatic in his basement).

The logistics and time-scale involved in an operation like that (hijacking a nuclear waste shipment and building a dirty bomb, and getting it into a city) would make the chance of success extremely small. They also tip off the authorities to their plan in the process, even if nothing leaked before hand, because people tend to notice when you hijack nuclear waste.

Any terrorist who has the bright idea to steal nuclear waste to build a dirty bomb is an idiot, and will almost certainly fail at the endeavor. This is the stuff of Hollywood fiction.

Now... biological terrorism... that's kinda scary, and can be carried out by a smaller number of people, and potentially without law enforcement knowing it's happening (growing and refining a toxin in your basement can be kept more low key than an armed robbery of a waste shipment).

Any marginally competent terrorist is going to choose a biological attack instead of a dirty bomb. There are so many relative advantages (towards the end of terrorism; of course the bomb itself is terrible), it just doesn't compare.

Which, given the superior alternative, makes the threat of dirty bombs drop to nearly zero.

The same way the threat of criminals using lasers to rob people is less than criminals using guns to rob people- one is substantially less effective than the other, and only an idiot criminal would have the bright idea to try it.

Volenta wrote: It's not a source, but a way of reducing the need for a greater energy source.

It doesn't, though... it doesn't reduce need at all, it increases it.

Volenta wrote:You're right that it requires energy to convert, but from what I've heard it can be done with very little (just simple wind/solar energy).

You've heard wrong. It extremely energy intensive to crack water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, which is the primary step of conversion of electrical into stored chemical energy.

Wind and solar are just other sources of electric power- they can crack water, but you have to understand that in the process you're wasting most of the energy.

Nuclear can do it much more effectively, and efficiently, because it has steam output, but even that is a waste of energy when you could just put it on the grid instead.

Making hydrocarbons isn't a very good use of energy.
Politicians really like it because it uses existing gasoline distribution infrastructure, which admittedly is an advantage, but it's so inefficient that you're really just throwing more good money after bad.

Trying too hard to stick to old infrastructure is something that's holding us back.

We need to switch to electric cars and buses, and use exclusively nuclear power (where hydro isn't available), with the exception of decentralized locations, which should be running on solar/wind due to the costs of getting grid power to them.

We also need to make better use of more efficient energy saving infrastructure, like geothermal heat sinks for climate control systems, insulation, and better reflective roofing.

Shadow Fox wrote:I heard a lot of good things about Thorium.

Thorium is kind of silly. It's like saying that Nerf balls are too dangerous, and we need to delay development of our infrastructure for possibly a decade and spend billions of dollars to produce a safer form of Nerf ball first.

If it allays the public's lunacy and makes people support nuclear power... fine. But Uranium is perfectly fine as it is.

IMO we should only start using Thorium when we're out of Uranium.

Shadow Fox wrote:That combined with Fusion energy, if we were to get that going, would be amazing.

Thus far, Fusion seems to be a pipe dream.

Maybe in 50 years.

For now, we have more than enough Uranium to power the world on conventional nuclear power for potentially hundreds of years, maybe a thousand or more, with breeders.