Energy is the key

[JohnnySavage]

... the key to humanity's survival I mean.

Here is an interesting story from WaPo (it's short for those of you with an impaired attention system): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

As I see it, there are only two problems in the world: 1) Overpopulation; and, 2) Not enough power. All the other challenges we face stem from those two problems. Of the two, power is the key. With cheap, clean energy the overpopulation problem can be handled because the developing world will have access to medical care, education, and a standard of living that doesn't require additional farm hands.

I see a day in the future where every household in the first world countries have a power cell in the basement, like they now have a furnace. Individual homes will be powered by an individual, emission free power system. For the third world countries, I see community based power cells that provide the same clean energy but on a larger scale.

Industrial and municipal power will still be powered from large generating plants that feed a national grid, but those power plants will be nuclear and augmented by solar and wind power.

Yes, I think power is the key to our survival. Will we develop the technology in time is the question.

[Songcatcher]

Geothermal energy.

Look it up.

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Overpopulation is not a problem.



Everyone who has ever held it out to be a problem had to hold technological advances to zero to advance their theory to some absurd logical conclusion, Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" comes immediately to mind for when I was in High School, it and imminent Global COlling and the Death of Bald Eagles (Rachael Carson) were required reading...

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq

Overpopulation is not a problem.



Everyone who has ever held it out to be a problem had to hold technological advances to zero to advance their theory to some absurd logical conclusion, Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" comes immediately to mind for when I was in High School, it and imminent Global COlling and the Death of Bald Eagles (Rachael Carson) were required reading...

There has to be a limit as to how many people the world's resources can support. With advances in technology that limit will increase, but I don't think it's infinite.

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

There has to be a limit as to how many people the world's resources can support. With advances in technology that limit will increase, but I don't think it's infinite.

I think it is.

Additionally, we have plenty of power but merely lack the political will to use it.

[Songcatcher]

Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq

merely lack the political will to use it.

Correct.

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Originally Posted by Songcatcher

Correct.

In an oak forest, even the blind squirrel finds acorns...

[JohnnySavage]

Carbon-based energy is last year's technology. Don't be afraid of the future, embrace it as it's coming!

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Carbon-based energy is last year's technology. Don't be afraid of the future, embrace it as it's coming!

We're not going to rush it...

[JohnnySavage]

Also: future homes will be powered by direct current. That change would save energy because solar technology produces direct current, and storage devices store and release direct current, thus eliminating losses from conversion to alternating current.

[rosco rathbone]

Nuclear is the future.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by rosco rathbone

Nuclear is the future.

I think it is for large-scale needs. But I think this fuel cell technology will allow homeowners to have their own private source of power.

[rosco rathbone]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

I think it is for large-scale needs. But I think this fuel cell technology will allow homeowners to have their own private source of power.

Got a stock tip for us?

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

I think it is for large-scale needs. But I think this fuel cell technology will allow homeowners to have their own private source of power.

I think France's success with nuclear power works against the "large scale needs" rationale in America. America seems (probably better to say "seemed") enamored with monolithic custom nuclear plants for the longest time, whereas France took a cookie-cutter small-is-better approach building over 100 smallish nuclear power plants...they seem to be better able to ride out energy crises.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by rosco rathbone

Got a stock tip for us?

WFR, UEC, FCEL

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

I think France's success with nuclear power works against the "large scale needs" rationale in America. America seems (probably better to say "seemed") enamored with monolithic custom nuclear plants for the longest time, whereas France took a cookie-cutter small-is-better approach building over 100 smallish nuclear power plants...they seem to be better able to ride out energy crises.

By large scale, I was talking about central power plants powering a grid for large users like office buildings, factories, municipalities. France's plants are smaller than US ones, but they are still in the mega-watt range. I don't think we will ever get rid of our grid system of distribution, but we can pull a lot of users off of it, just like we did when we pulled people off of municipal steam systems for heating.

[great lover]

Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq

Overpopulation is not a problem.



Everyone who has ever held it out to be a problem had to hold technological advances to zero to advance their theory to some absurd logical conclusion, Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" comes immediately to mind for when I was in High School, it and imminent Global COlling and the Death of Bald Eagles (Rachael Carson) were required reading...

A wise man knew this back in the dark ages of the Irish Potato Famine.

[TurdFergeson]

Why not a combination of geothermal, solar, and wind, for homes?

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Why not a combination of geothermal, solar, and wind, for homes?

I have a friend who has a wind generator for his home. It was a bitch getting zoning approval though because the tower is 150' which was too high of a structure for a residential zone. It works great, but he's still connected to the grid for those times when the wind isn't blowing and the batteries are dead.

I imagine a system where people who live in dense communities (like less than 1/3 of an acre per house) would have a full-time private source of power.

Wind, geothermal and solar all require lots of space and work well as a supplement, but not as a stand-alone system.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

I have a friend who has a wind generator for his home. It was a bitch getting zoning approval though because the tower is 150' which was too high of a structure for a residential zone. It works great, but he's still connected to the grid for those times when the wind isn't blowing and the batteries are dead.

I imagine a system where people who live in dense communities (like less than 1/3 of an acre per house) would have a full-time private source of power.

Wind, geothermal and solar all require lots of space and work well as a supplement, but not as a stand-alone system.

I wonder what the progress is on the Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor up in Alaska is.

[Applesaround]

I agree that technology is key to the future, but I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a working solution either (I know you're not saying that...just adding to the discussion).

For instance, there is enough coal to tide society over for hundreds of years, during which time it can be phased out in a way that doesn't affect jobs and peoples lives. Possible offsets to the pollution might include carbon sequestration; another technological hurdle.

Nuclear power is by far the cleanest form of energy production, but it is mired in controversy. The amount of nuclear waste produced in one year from a nuclear power plant can fits on the inside of an automobile volume-wise. Compared to CO2 emissions from coal production, that's infintesimal.

Geothermal energy is a great domestic solution, but I wonder about it's applications on an industrial level. Solar energy cells currently don't have the energy density to produce energy at a mass scale.

Hydro electricity is a wonderful form of energy, but dams alter large ecosystems thus have there own controversy with environmentalists and politicians alike. And there are only a finite number of watersheds you would want to alter realistically.

The politics of cheap energy might be what hampers these technologies at the end of the day. Those who literally 'have the power' probably will endeavour to control it.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by Applesaround

. The amount of nuclear waste produced in one year from a nuclear power plant can fits on the inside of an automobile volume-wise. Compared to CO2 emissions from coal production, that's infintesimal.

Except for the costs of uranium mining , refinement, and fabrication in to pellets and rods.

Then you have the huge costs of maintenance and safety for those huge plants.

Then you have the problem that the relatively small amount (volume-wise) of radioactive waste per year is still more than enough to poison huge areas.

Why can't we make some type of huge pendulum that uses the centrifugal power of the Earth's rotation to generate power?

[Applesaround]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Except for the costs of uranium mining , refinement, and fabrication in to pellets and rods.

Then you have the huge costs of maintenance and safety for those huge plants.

Then you have the problem that the relatively small amount (volume-wise) of radioactive waste per year is still more than enough to poison huge areas.

Why can't we make some type of huge pendulum that uses the centrifugal power of the Earth's rotation to generate power?

I agree that Uranium mining will have a footprint, but the footprint is actually very small, as it is with a good number of mining operations of other commodities. I can't comment on refinement and fabrication though, so you might have a point there.

Hmm...a huge pendulum....sounds dangerous.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Except for the costs of uranium mining , refinement, and fabrication in to pellets and rods.

Then you have the huge costs of maintenance and safety for those huge plants.

Then you have the problem that the relatively small amount (volume-wise) of radioactive waste per year is still more than enough to poison huge areas.

Why can't we make some type of huge pendulum that uses the centrifugal power of the Earth's rotation to generate power?

We could just bolt a big magnet on the north pole, and surround it with copper wire suspended from a satellite!

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by Applesaround

I agree that Uranium mining will have a footprint, but the footprint is actually very small, as it is with a good number of mining operations of other commodities. I can't comment on refinement and fabrication though, so you might have a point there.

Hmm...a huge pendulum....sounds dangerous.

Well, think about all the diesel and power used to mine and refine.

Not to mention all the machinery that has to be manufactured and maintained.

Actually...what is really dangerous are "solar power satellites". They are satellites with solar panels that convert the power in to microwave beams which are transmitted back down to big terrestrial collector dishes.

But...imagine if the power was upped...great space-based death ray?