Truly Renewable Energy

[EyeKhan]

What indeed.

Like you would oppose the plan. No matter what happens, you win.

[icks]

Since the thread has mostly lost it's seriousness, can I enquire about what was said about tidal energy in the original thread? That comes from our moon and gravity obviously and not-so-obviously where ever gravitational PE comes from but I am pretty sure that's entirely renewable, granted, until the suns blows up.

[Khendraja'aro]

Since the thread has mostly lost it's seriousness, can I enquire about what was said about tidal energy in the original thread? That comes from our moon and gravity obviously and not-so-obviously where ever gravitational PE comes from but I am pretty sure that's entirely renewable, granted, until the suns blows up.

Well, it does sound promising - however, tidal power generation also has a rather large ecological impact on the area around it. For starters, the fish who get sucked into those definitely won't like it.

On the other hand, it's a highly dependable technology - the frequency of the tides is near-constant.

[Being]

Well, it does sound promising - however, tidal power generation also has a rather large ecological impact on the area around it. For starters, the fish who get sucked into those definitely won't like it.

On the other hand, it's a highly dependable technology - the frequency of the tides is near-constant.

If we suck the energy out of the tides on a massive scale it will change eco-systems in that region. And as we've witnessed in our own lifetime changing eco-systems causes other changes which might not be as beneficial as the energy we get from robbing energy from a system that had worked fine when left alone.

[Khendraja'aro]

If we suck the energy out of the tides on a massive scale it will change eco-systems in that region. And as we've witnessed in our own lifetime changing eco-systems causes other changes which might not be as beneficial as the energy we get from robbing energy from a system that had worked fine when left alone.

You really don't know how this whole "Physics" thing works, do you? What I see here is a massive amount of confusion on the meaning of physical terms.

[EyeKhan]

If we suck the energy out of the tides on a massive scale it will change eco-systems in that region. And as we've witnessed in our own lifetime changing eco-systems causes other changes which might not be as beneficial as the energy we get from robbing energy from a system that had worked fine when left alone.

I don't know about the tides, but I think there could be some issue with doing this to the wind. Wind turbines don't just ride on the wind, they remove energy to make electricity (and heat). And wind is a large component of weather. What happens to patterns of weather if we build enough wind turbines to remove, say, 10% of global wind energy? What about 20%? Weather will have to be to affected. The very basic and more or less unaddressed problem in all of this is we've become so numerious and so energy/resource hungry that whatever we do to meet those needs is going to affect the climate in one way or another.

[']['ear]

Choochoo, I'm thinking you'd be hard-pressed to decrease total wind energy in a manner that would alter weather, at least at a level which wouldn't fill up the scenery with turbines.

One reason solar is so awesome, We tap into that Great Fusion Pant in the Sky but putting stuff on roofs. We already have these! They are properly oriented! Hoorah!

[Flixy]

Wind energy is also taken out a lot by trees etc., which would catch less wind too then. And the atmosphere is really, really big, runs up high too. I'm not sure if wind turbines could have a significant effect within the tow hundred meters or so, let alone the entire atmosphere. Not more than mountains, and things like that, anyway.

[Nessus]

The mountains westward of here kinda define our daily weather, I don't see how filling up the sea between Norway and the UK with turbines wouldn't do something with the weather.

Again, we use ridiculous amounts of oil-based power. Replacing any meaningful fraction of that with wind mills would require boat-loads of windmills.

[wiggin]

Nessie - for most countries, that's not true. The bulk of oil use is not for electricity generation. Renewable energy would be used to replace coal, gas, and nuclear, mostly.

[Nessus]

Nessie - for most countries, that's not true. The bulk of oil use is not for electricity generation. Renewable energy would be used to replace coal, gas, and nuclear, mostly.

Um

People eat, so they have to use oil-generated power Right? I mean, that's the whole point with comparing oil calories burnt to each calorie of food consumed. Sure, I need electricymagic to light up my place and fuel my intertrons-access-machine, but I'm pretty sure I use way more global resources with my food consumption.

[wiggin]

Sorry, I thought you meant power as in electrical power, not the general 'power' (as in energy per unit time). Oil accounts for a bit over a third of our energy usage, but a large chunk of that is in transportation and a relatively smaller amount is used to actually make electricity. Wind power and the like is largely for things that are on the grid, which is not going to significantly replace oil (though it will replace gas and coal, which are two biggies).

That being said, an argument can be made that as more and more of our transportation infrastructure is run off the grid (e.g. electric cars, trains, etc.) renewable electricity generation will become more important for reducing oil consumption as opposed to generally reducing our carbon footprint and use of fossil fuels.

[Being]

Nessie - for most countries, that's not true. The bulk of oil use is not for electricity generation. Renewable energy would be used to replace coal, gas, and nuclear, mostly.

Don't bottle it as electric, coal, gas, nuclear. It is energy consumption. Period. And altering any natural pattern is going to have affects on the environment. The question is, do we just use wind to generate energy or do we do it in such a way that the enviromental changes it causes benefits us as well? Currently we merely ignore the consequences and generate energy.

[Nessus]

Sorry, I thought you meant power as in electrical power, not the general 'power' (as in energy per unit time). Oil accounts for a bit over a third of our energy usage, but a large chunk of that is in transportation and a relatively smaller amount is used to actually make electricity. Wind power and the like is largely for things that are on the grid, which is not going to significantly replace oil (though it will replace gas and coal, which are two biggies).

That being said, an argument can be made that as more and more of our transportation infrastructure is run off the grid (e.g. electric cars, trains, etc.) renewable electricity generation will become more important for reducing oil consumption as opposed to generally reducing our carbon footprint and use of fossil fuels.

Power as in joules per second, yes.

I'm probably a bit out-dated with my info by now, but it was my impression that most of the longer distance supply chains run on fossil fuels; I have Canadian whisky and some clementines in my fridge and I'm pretty sure those came here by the miracle of oil. And the cheapest ways of ferrying stuff around long-distance right now are oil-burning trucks and boats, right? We're moving towards an electricity-grid supply chain, sure, but with nations with a population density as sparse as ours, that might be hard to implement compared to central Europe or the megalopolii on the East Coast.

[wiggin]

Yes, most transportation infrastructure is based on oil. No one has really found a way to haul lots of stuff with a high density fuel that isn't some sort of fossil fuel, and oil is pretty convenient and cheap (coal and biomass used to be the fuels of choice). Airplanes, most trains, boats, and most trucks all run on oil. To replace this with something bulky like wind power you'd need to put the whole system on the grid - which for boats and airplanes, at least, is going to be awfully difficult.

[Nessus]

Which means making good batteries. Or using those nuclear-powered air-planes you guys designed during the Cold War, but they're not good for freight I think.

[wiggin]

So far, battery technology is nowhere near the densities needed for long-haul travel. I mean, I don't think it's even remotely on the horizon. A battery that can move a container ship without recharging from, say, Hong Kong to Europe or the US? Nuclear reactors are a far more likely alternative, but those have lots of obvious issues for widespread consumer use.

Planes are even tougher, but they are a relatively small portion of the overall goods moved, so I think we could just stick with biofuels and just eat the carbon footprint (at least we wouldn't be depleting oil reserves, though). Ditto for other specialized applications (e.g. military applications - batteries aren't going to run good ol' tanks for a very long time, if ever).

[EyeKhan]

Choochoo, I'm thinking you'd be hard-pressed to decrease total wind energy in a manner that would alter weather, at least at a level which wouldn't fill up the scenery with turbines.

I'm all for filling the scenery with turbines. We should put them on big kites and fly them in the freakin' jet stream. How else is wind going to replace coil anyway?

[EyeKhan]

Power as in joules per second, yes.

I'm probably a bit out-dated with my info by now, but it was my impression that most of the longer distance supply chains run on fossil fuels; I have Canadian whisky and some clementines in my fridge and I'm pretty sure those came here by the miracle of oil. And the cheapest ways of ferrying stuff around long-distance right now are oil-burning trucks and boats, right? We're moving towards an electricity-grid supply chain, sure, but with nations with a population density as sparse as ours, that might be hard to implement compared to central Europe or the megalopolii on the East Coast.

Kentucky & Tennessee whisky's the best.

[agamemnus]

Might be easier to tap the core -- at least it was in MOO2. Do that would give us a mineral and an energy source, btw. But I think you over-estimate the difficulty and cost of bringing an asteroid home. Sooner or later we have to get our mineral resources and energy off-world and the spin-off benefits will be gigantic.


Note - we could cut costs by skipping, or at least abbreviating greatly, the testing phase. What could go wrong anyway?

It would be a lot cheaper to just aim it into the earth with well-placed rockets attached to it and/or nukes and mine it from there.

[EyeKhan]

It would be a lot cheaper to just aim it into the earth with well-placed rockets attached to it and/or nukes and mine it from there.

I think they have a phrase for that. What was it again? Extinction level impact or something?

Not sure if you're serious, but if you have a three mile long asteroid composed of maybe 50% metals like iron and nickel and you want to lower it gently to the earth on rockets, oh, I dunno. Gonna take a lot of energy to keep from making a dinosaur killer out of it, and that energy's going to be pointed down at the landing site, more or less, and well...

If you mine it in orbit, you can just drop the ore to Earth in big ingots. Most asteroids are a mix of materials, some having lots of organics. So if we have a metals rich asteroid and an organics rich asteroid - or if we get lucky and find a combo - then we can fashion blobs of metal the size of a volkswaggon bug, encase it in a silica shell (might not be necessary) and attach a parachute deployment system then drop it at the right trajectory to land in your steel plant's back lot. Might be a trick to make the parachute from insitu materials but maybe we can fashion something from the organics - carbon fiber net or some sort of artificial fabric like nylon. Delivery from orbit would be practically free.

[Timbuk2]

So far, battery technology is nowhere near the densities needed for long-haul travel. I mean, I don't think it's even remotely on the horizon. A battery that can move a container ship without recharging from, say, Hong Kong to Europe or the US? Nuclear reactors are a far more likely alternative, but those have lots of obvious issues for widespread consumer use.

What's your take on Hydrogen fuel cells?

Some Buses in Europe are now hydrogen powered; Mercedes has just such a chassis.

Not heard of the use of hydrogen in road-freight, but it can't be a big step from bus to truck.

The infrastructure for hydrogen refuelling is slowly falling in to place. Pumps are available; Shell has begun rollout - there are 23 so far across California for instance.

The technologies and processes for hydrogen extraction are not yet efficient, but with suitable investment they soon will be.

Hydrogen is the most abundant resource in the universe. The hydrogen fuel cell has zero toxic waste; just water. You can't get a much greener method of transporting goods or people from A to B.

I don't know about the scalability of the cell, whether it can be used to power trains and even container-ships one day? I can't imagine it'd be an insurmountable problem though.

Surely this is the future?

Batteries are nothing more than a stop-gap in transportation till more efficient technologies come along. Batteries are always limited by their charge. When the charge runs out, you can't just recharge in minutes in the way you can just fill up with petrol or hydrogen at a filling station.

Plus, the metals used to make up modern batteries, such as lithium, are becoming much more scarce.

[EyeKhan]

Put sails on them container ships! I wonder how big a sail would have to be to move something that size.... Hmmm.... I bet Khenny could calculate it.

[Timbuk2]

Put sails on them container ships! I wonder how big a sail would have to be to move something that size.... Hmmm.... I bet Khenny could calculate it.

• The kite sail will help reduce annual fuel costs by 10-35%. Reduced fuel also means fewer harmful carbon emissions
• The large towing kite resembles a paraglider and is shaped like an aircraft wing, to enable it to take advantage of different wind directions
• It operates at 100-300m above surface level - much higher than a normal sailing craft - where winds are stronger and more stable
• The kite can be used in winds of 12-74km/h (7-40 knots) and not just when the wind is blowing directly from behind the ship

[EyeKhan]

Are those for real? Or shopped? If its real, its totally sweet. Now, the next step is to make those sails with some sort of flexible solar power collector and use the resulting energy to power the ship and split water into hydrogen/oxygen to run fuel cells when needed.

[Timbuk2]

Edited in a bit more detail.

They're real and in use.

Use is limited, obviously, but every bit helps. P'ticularly given that the shipping industry burns more fuel than the aviation industry.

[EyeKhan]

Those ships look fairly small compared to a big container ship. I like how the one is loaded with wind turbine parts. Nice touch.

[wiggin]

Hydrogen is the most abundant resource in the universe. The hydrogen fuel cell has zero toxic waste; just water. You can't get a much greener method of transporting goods or people from A to B.

You mention some of the other concerns with hydrogen fuel: my biggest one is its volumetric energy density, which is nowhere near as good as gasoline, but there are also some safety concerns and efficiency questions (economic efficiency, not point-of-use energy efficiency: making super-pure hydrogen is expensive and energy-heavy, and the fuel cells are fantastically pricey). Furthermore, the overall thermal energy efficiency for using hydrogen for transportation is lower than that of gasoline, while the efficiency of electric cars is much higher than either.

It's possible it will work, but it's nowhere near applicability yet, and its uses are probably limited.

Furthermore, hydrogen fuel has a very bad pollutant - water vapor. That's one of the most potent greenhouse gases around. Of course, that's a bit of hyperbole, but it's definitely a misnomer to suggest putting vast amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere won't count as pollution. Similarly, there are other pollutants from hydrogen fuel cells - notably stuff like NO and the like from weird side reactions during the reaction of air and hydrogen. Better than currently used technologies, yes, but definitely not pollution free.

[']['ear]

Sorry, I thought you meant power as in electrical power, not the general 'power' (as in energy per unit time). Oil accounts for a bit over a third of our energy usage, but a large chunk of that is in transportation and a relatively smaller amount is used to actually make electricity. Wind power and the like is largely for things that are on the grid, which is not going to significantly replace oil (though it will replace gas and coal, which are two biggies).

That being said, an argument can be made that as more and more of our transportation infrastructure is run off the grid (e.g. electric cars, trains, etc.) renewable electricity generation will become more important for reducing oil consumption as opposed to generally reducing our carbon footprint and use of fossil fuels.

As usual, a nice precis. Dude, will you come help me write my grant? Damn but clarity doesn't come naturally to me. Nonlinear, I'm afraid.

Yes, most transportation infrastructure is based on oil. No one has really found a way to haul lots of stuff with a high density fuel that isn't some sort of fossil fuel, and oil is pretty convenient and cheap (coal and biomass used to be the fuels of choice). Airplanes, most trains, boats, and most trucks all run on oil. To replace this with something bulky like wind power you'd need to put the whole system on the grid - which for boats and airplanes, at least, is going to be awfully difficult.

Makes you think that we should be conserving those high energy fuels for where we really need it, eh? But sadly most Americans are driving semi-tanks and care most about how quickly their vehicle gets from 0 to 60.

I'm all for filling the scenery with turbines. We should put them on big kites and fly them in the freakin' jet stream. How else is wind going to replace coil anyway?

Pfagh! We could cover every roof in America with solar panels and rock the grid right off of coal/gas. Or, look at France and its near ubiquitous nuclear. That's the one serious gripe I have with most environmentalists: their hysteria about nukes really screwed us up.

Put sails on them container ships! I wonder how big a sail would have to be to move something that size.... Hmmm.... I bet Khenny could calculate it.

That's neat. I wonder what the cost-benefit is for that. They shoot for small crews on those big freighters. How much maintenance does it require? How much training?

[EyeKhan]

Pfagh! We could cover every roof in America with solar panels and rock the grid right off of coal/gas. Or, look at France and its near ubiquitous nuclear. That's the one serious gripe I have with most environmentalists: their hysteria about nukes really screwed us up.

Nuclear, I agree. But solar's not that simple. There's the night issue, first of all. Then the cost of the panels and the grid infrastructure (which I guess is already there . . .. ). Then the maintenance of such a distributed energy infrastructure - who's going to keep the panels in working order on all those houses?

That's neat. I wonder what the cost-benefit is for that. They shoot for small crews on those big freighters. How much maintenance does it require? How much training?

It can't be that much or that hard.