NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I'm supposed to take sides and express a preference. I like solar, because it's the fundamental power source of all life on earth, and we can use large quantities of it without doing anything that prairies and forests and sea algae aren't doing already.

Photovoltaic power is slowly improving. Manufacture costs are still prohibitive, but efficiency is in the useful range for household use (light falling on the house can power the house 24/7). If plants can do it, we can do it.

As usual in a controversy, I go lateral. What we need is an efficient, safe, portable form of power storage. Hydrogen is efficient and it's somewhat portable. It's also effectively closed-cycle, since water (oxidized hydrogen) is harmless and omnipresent.

EDIT: and yes, the breakthrough in solar power might infact come from genetic engineering. Plants you can plug into the grid, or plants which make liquid fuel directly.

Look, photovoltaics are nice. They are not, however, any sort of sensible choice for power generation through solar energy.

The way to go is very very simple. You heat something up with it, and drive a turbine. You get it hot enough, you can keep your power going 24-7. There's work on using molten salt for the heat source, which should be able to run all night, still providing power.

As for wind, that's also fairly simple. Sure, it needs to have some wind. But the US is a fairly big country, and we already have a lovely electrical grid. You're always going to have wind somewhere, and you can pull power out of that.

So the way is this: Thermal solar plants in desert areas, wind farms all over the place. A group have designed a very simple little wind generator that draws power from a vibrating band, you can put one of those on each house, get everyone to feed back into the grid. That'll help a lot. Then larger wind farms in more remote areas, heavy thermal solar plants to help with the rest.

Storing power is also simple: flywheels. Very efficient, especially in comparison to batteries. Just run the energy into getting them up to speed, and then pull it back out by hooking them up to generators. I even came up with an idea for spacecraft, that involved setting flywheels spinning directly from the solar wind, but that's not so practical on Earth.

However, radioactivity from a nuclear plant - be it fusion or fission - is a negligible threat to human life when compared to fossil fuels and their emissions.
huh? so you'ld rather spend 10 minutes in a tunnel packed with cars all running than 10 minutes in the reactor without any protection?

No, it isn't, the supply is finite.
We'll not be off oil until 2100 is my guess. People said there was only 30 years' supply left back in the seventies, and they were wrong, what's to say that today's estimates are really any more accurate?

huh? so you'ld rather spend 10 minutes in a tunnel packed with cars all running than 10 minutes in the reactor without any protection?

Yes

huh? so you'ld rather spend 10 minutes in a tunnel packed with cars all running than 10 minutes in the reactor without any protection?

Bad analogy. Ten minutes in a tunnel full of cars is something that happens every day. Ten minutes in a reactor is not likely to happen. More appropriate would be, would you rather have a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of spending 10 minutes in a tunnel full of cars or a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of spending 10 minutes in a reactor? I'd pick the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of spending 10 minutes in a reactor.


And if I do end up in the reactor, it's ok because I'd get super powers. I'd be Super Spam Man and I'd fly around saving the world with spam-based powers.

We'll not be off oil until 2100 is my guess. People said there was only 30 years' supply left back in the seventies, and they were wrong, what's to say that today's estimates are really any more accurate?

Well, being off oil is different from relying on oil for our energy needs. The world's demand for energy is simply growing too fast for oil to keep up; that means no matter what, it's going to not only be more expensive but it's going to be displaced by other sources. Oil will probably be approaching its production plateau and then decline within the next decade and will gradually be phased out by a combination of raw economic pressure and technological obsolescence over the course of this century.

Just another step in the development of the global energy mix, and one that's good for our planet and economy to boot. Oil's played its part and now it's being eroded by other, better sources.

We'll not be off oil until 2100 is my guess. People said there was only 30 years' supply left back in the seventies, and they were wrong, what's to say that today's estimates are really any more accurate?

There is a lot to say that the current (OPEC) official estimates are less accurate than they were in the 1970's, given by a series of OPEC countries having surprise oil reserve estimate increases with no evidence as to why they increased them.

There is a lot to say that the current (OPEC) official estimates are less accurate than they were in the 1970's, given by a series of OPEC countries having surprise oil reserve estimate increases with no evidence as to why they increased them.

It's also true, though, that OPEC's relative importance to the world oil markets has declined considerably due to much faster growth in production and reserves in the non-OPEC world. So, their reserves and the accuracy of those numbers is far less important in assessing world oil supplies than it would have been 30 years ago.

That being said, they probably are exaggerating reserves to some extent, which means their production possibility is also in question.

Look, photovoltaics are nice. They are not, however, any sort of sensible choice for power generation through solar energy.

At present no. They have uses in remote locations but they're far too expensive, not efficient enough and need a lot of storage to provide base load. Being made out of silica is good (that's cheap) but manufacture is a killer, uses way too much power. That could change -- nano or biotech could provide a breakthrough. Perhaps even a panel which stores the energy itself.

The way to go is very very simple. You heat something up with it, and drive a turbine. You get it hot enough, you can keep your power going 24-7. There's work on using molten salt for the heat source, which should be able to run all night, still providing power.

Interesting. Salt is cheap and plentiful. A bit corrosive though I'd have thought.

It might be wishful, but I favour decentralized power. It avoids transmission losses and doesn't tie us into the interdependence which is working OK now but might not be so clever in areas without a strong nationstates, or in the future if those break down. It would be nice if developing nations never had to build those power grids at all -- you refer to this later, in a way, with mention of local supplement of the grid.

As for wind, that's also fairly simple. Sure, it needs to have some wind. But the US is a fairly big country, and we already have a lovely electrical grid. You're always going to have wind somewhere, and you can pull power out of that.

I'm glad you mentioned that electrical grid. Taking power thousands of kilometres is hugely inefficient, you need copper or aluminium and they're both pretty energy intensive (not to mention the towers are ugly.) Some grid is necessary, but it would be nice to be able to expand energy usage without having to build new grid.

So the way is this: Thermal solar plants in desert areas, wind farms all over the place. A group have designed a very simple little wind generator that draws power from a vibrating band, you can put one of those on each house, get everyone to feed back into the grid. That'll help a lot. Then larger wind farms in more remote areas, heavy thermal solar plants to help with the rest.

It sounds pretty good and doesn't rely on major technological breakthroughs. But the big sources require big investment, strengthening the grip of corporations in the fields that government used to do just fine. And we still need lots of transport, because the power-intensive industries tend to move to the power not the other way around.

Storing power is also simple: flywheels. Very efficient, especially in comparison to batteries. Just run the energy into getting them up to speed, and then pull it back out by hooking them up to generators. I even came up with an idea for spacecraft, that involved setting flywheels spinning directly from the solar wind, but that's not so practical on Earth.

Flywheels huh? I hope you've looked at how long a bearing will last at the speed and mass you'd need. If it's on a scale of years I guess that would be practical. Evacuated chamber I presume.
On my recurring theme, localized storage with flywheel units would reduce the need for a grid which can carry the peak load. Even with centralized power sources, the grid would only need to carry the average load. Little generators aren't as efficient as big 'uns, and there's maintenance to consider ... but I'll investigate that some more. For some reason, I'm always thinking of chemical storage systems, despite how toxic and rare most of the likely ingredients are.

At present no. They have uses in remote locations but they're far too expensive, not efficient enough and need a lot of storage to provide base load. Being made out of silica is good (that's cheap) but manufacture is a killer, uses way too much power. That could change -- nano or biotech could provide a breakthrough. Perhaps even a panel which stores the energy itself.

All true. It sounds good, but for now it's nowhere near optimal for major power generation.

Interesting. Salt is cheap and plentiful. A bit corrosive though I'd have thought.

It might be wishful, but I favour decentralized power. It avoids transmission losses and doesn't tie us into the interdependence which is working OK now but might not be so clever in areas without a strong nationstates, or in the future if those break down. It would be nice if developing nations never had to build those power grids at all -- you refer to this later, in a way, with mention of local supplement of the grid.

Well, you aren't circulating the salt. It's being used as a heat store. You can get it up to very high temperatures, and it's more efficient to have large hot objects than small ones (heat loss is proportional to surface area, but energy is proportional to volume). So you set this up at the focus of a square acre or whatever of mirrors, heat it bloody hot, and use that to run a steam turbine. Because it'll be slowly cooling constantly, you'll get power all through the night.

I quite agree on decentralisation, of course. But the interesting thing here is that it's an effective method of getting large quantities of solar power, at a fairly constant rate. Also, this particular technology is more efficient the bigger you build it.

I'm glad you mentioned that electrical grid. Taking power thousands of kilometres is hugely inefficient, you need copper or aluminium and they're both pretty energy intensive (not to mention the towers are ugly.) Some grid is necessary, but it would be nice to be able to expand energy usage without having to build new grid.

Naturally. That's why you spread it out as much as you can. To take wind farms for an example, you get turbines spread out over the US as much as you can, then just let electricity flow as it does. They'll be picking up local slack first, then passing on the extra to other locations or to storage.

It sounds pretty good and doesn't rely on major technological breakthroughs. But the big sources require big investment, strengthening the grip of corporations in the fields that government used to do just fine. And we still need lots of transport, because the power-intensive industries tend to move to the power not the other way around.

Naturally. The important thing, I think, is to get everybody doing some, as much as possible. So we can start by getting a little turbine or generator out to everyone if we can. We probably won't get everything we need from that, but it'll be a start. Then spread larger turbines out as much as you can. Maybe subsidise farmers for having them on their land. That'll get a large part more. To finish it up, you have large wind farms and the previously explained solar plants to help pick up the slack and power large industry.

The grid is then simply used to redistribute power from where it's spare to where it's needed, and to storage mechanisms.

Flywheels huh? I hope you've looked at how long a bearing will last at the speed and mass you'd need. If it's on a scale of years I guess that would be practical. Evacuated chamber I presume.
On my recurring theme, localized storage with flywheel units would reduce the need for a grid which can carry the peak load. Even with centralized power sources, the grid would only need to carry the average load. Little generators aren't as efficient as big 'uns, and there's maintenance to consider ... but I'll investigate that some more. For some reason, I'm always thinking of chemical storage systems, despite how toxic and rare most of the likely ingredients are.

Yes, there are problems like that. It is, however, a good deal more efficient. So go with a number of smallish ones. Again, spread them out as much as possible. Maybe one in the base of every wind turbine to get started, and then larger ones as needed, at distribution stations and the like.

Of course, if we can get a practical room temperature superconductor...

Edit: I'm in no way a specialist in power plant systems, so I haven't looked into a lot of this in deep detail. Just chucking in what I know. I'm also writing a tabletop wargame system at the moment, so take everything with a 100 ton barrel of molten salt.

Well, you aren't circulating the salt. It's being used as a heat store. Ah! You can get it up to very high temperatures, and it's more efficient to have large hot objects than small ones*nod*So you set this up at the focus of a square acre or whatever of mirrors, heat it bloody hot, and use that to run a steam turbine. Because it'll be slowly cooling constantly, you'll get power all through the night.Good solution for here then (Australia). Lots of sun, land is cheap outside the cities, even quite near to them.

I quite agree on decentralisation, of course. But the interesting thing here is that it's an effective method of getting large quantities of solar power, at a fairly constant rate. Also, this particular technology is more efficient the bigger you build it.

*nod*

Naturally. The important thing, I think, is to get everybody doing some, as much as possible. So we can start by getting a little turbine or generator out to everyone if we can. We probably won't get everything we need from that, but it'll be a start. Then spread larger turbines out as much as you can. Maybe subsidise farmers for having them on their land. That'll get a large part more. To finish it up, you have large wind farms and the previously explained solar plants to help pick up the slack and power large industry.

Yes to that too. Technologies get a lot cheaper when you actually build them, the more practically minded engineer-types get to modify what the designers came up with, making simplifications in some cases, finding the weaknesses and looking for cheaper ways of achieving the same end.

I was reading about ITER, the current generation tokamak, last night. Horrifyingly big-budget stuff ... nobody is going to be tinkering with that to see if they can fix it with bailing-wire ... and the developement cycle is depressingly long. Of course, it's great that the international consortium is trying, but oh dear me.

Yes, there are problems like that. It is, however, a good deal more efficient. So go with a number of smallish ones. Again, spread them out as much as possible. Maybe one in the base of every wind turbine to get started, and then larger ones as needed, at distribution stations and the like.

Yes. The first thing I thought was "hey, have one out the back of the house," but then I thought, sure I might be comfortable maintaining such a unit, but for most people it's going to mean a mechanic coming around regularly ... not good, given always increasing wages. It would be a heavy unit, too, so returning them to a factory to maintain them isn't good either.
So I guess we're looking at distributing them every few kilometres, like substations are in cities. And as you say, at the point of generation to smooth out the supply.

Edit: I'm in no way a specialist in power plant systems, so I haven't looked into a lot of this in deep detail. Just chucking in what I know. I'm also writing a tabletop wargame system at the moment, so take everything with a 100 ton barrel of molten salt.
Yeah, likewise. This is helping develop some enthusiasm on my part to really learn more about the subject. I tend to shy away from anything industrial, but of course the solution must apply to the big energy users, industries that won't just go away because I don't like 'em.

It's also true, though, that OPEC's relative importance to the world oil markets has declined considerably due to much faster growth in production and reserves in the non-OPEC world. So, their reserves and the accuracy of those numbers is far less important in assessing world oil supplies than it would have been 30 years ago.

That being said, they probably are exaggerating reserves to some extent, which means their production possibility is also in question.

True, though what I'm trying to imply is that most countries/companies probably exaggerate the current oil reserves. Smaller amounts of oil won't make long-term profits (due to the public thinking that oil will be non-commercially viable and would try to switch to other fuel sources), smaller extractions will.

Fusion project: Whilst it has a long development cycle the progress is steady (including a second reactor being set up for a much longer reaction time). That time also allows a lot of physics research to be developed that will improve the process and techniques. Once those are secured the real mass-scale engineering work can commence.

Ah! *nod*Good solution for here then (Australia). Lots of sun, land is cheap outside the cities, even quite near to them.

Yep, it should work well in the antipodes.

Yes to that too. Technologies get a lot cheaper when you actually build them, the more practically minded engineer-types get to modify what the designers came up with, making simplifications in some cases, finding the weaknesses and looking for cheaper ways of achieving the same end.

I was reading about ITER, the current generation tokamak, last night. Horrifyingly big-budget stuff ... nobody is going to be tinkering with that to see if they can fix it with bailing-wire ... and the developement cycle is depressingly long. Of course, it's great that the international consortium is trying, but oh dear me.

Yes. Actually, as long as you don't care about break even points, you can build a fusion reactor in your backyard. You won't get energy out of it, but it's still pretty cool. I have semi-serious plans to build one one day.

Of course, if ITER works, then we're set, really, because the theory will be proven and so more can be built.

Yes. The first thing I thought was "hey, have one out the back of the house," but then I thought, sure I might be comfortable maintaining such a unit, but for most people it's going to mean a mechanic coming around regularly ... not good, given always increasing wages. It would be a heavy unit, too, so returning them to a factory to maintain them isn't good either.
So I guess we're looking at distributing them every few kilometres, like substations are in cities. And as you say, at the point of generation to smooth out the supply.

Naturally. As far as possible, keeping supply smooth should help with efficiencies. I reckon the best way to do one in every house would be to fit them into new ones by default. IIRC, the key for a flywheel is how fast it's spinning. So make one light and strong, and it should be able to run for a while. Just have the whole thing a 'black box' down in the basement. It won't store a years power or anything, but will smooth out spikes in supply and the like.

Yeah, likewise. This is helping develop some enthusiasm on my part to really learn more about the subject. I tend to shy away from anything industrial, but of course the solution must apply to the big energy users, industries that won't just go away because I don't like 'em.

Yes, and more's the pity. Ideally, of course, we have a fully decentralised system where every household is theoretically fully self-sufficient for electricity. But that probably ain't happening anytime soon.

Incidentally, what happened to Noble Hobos the nation?

*snip reply to my newer nation*

Incidentally, what happened to Noble Hobos the nation?

Too many people misread the name. "Nobility" is repellent to me.

I posted as BunnySaurus Bugsii for a while, trying to lift my game by never posting drunk. I'll still use that if I really want to make it clear I'm sober, but I found it really restricting to not be able to continue debates until the next day ... plus the name is pretty damn silly.

So, No-Bugs Ho-Bot for now. The name is silly, but it had to be close enough to be recognizable, and the No-Bugs part is a bit of a link to my alter ego BSB.

Because it probably isn't obvious, I was thinking "fun mechanical courtesan, guaranteed not to malfunction ... often." I wonder sometimes how close it came to being disallowed as a lewd name. ;)

It absorbs radiation better. It'd be like a giant heat-sink made of graphite. It's much safer than water-cooling.

Chernobyl was cooled by water and graphite, worked good.

Disclaimer: My irritable mood has made me very sarcastic this morning.Odd, me too, which is one of the reasons i've given so little play on this thread.

Too many people misread the name. "Nobility" is repellent to me.

I posted as BunnySaurus Bugsii for a while, trying to lift my game by never posting drunk. I'll still use that if I really want to make it clear I'm sober, but I found it really restricting to not be able to continue debates until the next day ... plus the name is pretty damn silly.

So, No-Bugs Ho-Bot for now. The name is silly, but it had to be close enough to be recognizable, and the No-Bugs part is a bit of a link to my alter ego BSB.

Because it probably isn't obvious, I was thinking "fun mechanical courtesan, guaranteed not to malfunction ... often." I wonder sometimes how close it came to being disallowed as a lewd name. ;)

Ah, I see. Seems quite reasonable, yes. I mostly like this account for the age, really.

Chernobyl was cooled by water and graphite, worked good.

Exactly. We should follow their example. The Soviets really knew what they were doing, yeah?

Nothing like a good steam-explosion to relax in when you get home from work...

My little contribution, but I think I heard somewhere we'd run outta oil in the next 30 or so years. I just hope this isn't like fusion power (always 50 years away), since I would like to be the one to point a finger at the government and laugh. Because the amount of oil we have left is pretty low, especially with all the chaos going on in oil grand central (a.k.a Middle East), and with the far east now experiencing a new industrial revolution...
Of course, I am probably wrong in this, but still there isn't any better way to get down the population and make us think.

Nothing like a good steam-explosion to relax in when you get home from work...

"Honey, what's for dinner?"
"Steamed broccoli."

Now fortified with extra radiation.

"Honey, what's for dinner?"
"Steamed broccoli."

Now fortified with extra radiation.

And don't forget to add gamma-sterilized beef for that dinner that says "Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like it when I get angry."

And don't forget to add gamma-sterilized beef for that dinner that says "Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like it when I get angry."

They're Ukrainians. It's pretty much a nation of The Hulks.


Except they're not green.






Well, they weren't green before 1986, anyways.