SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the my-solar-panels-are-covered-in-soot dept.
Ken_g6 writes:
Wired today reports on continued coal use around the world and efforts to promote carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Today coal produces more than 40 percent of the world's electricity, a foundation of modern life. And that percentage is going up: In the past decade, coal added more to the global energy supply than any other source. Nowhere is the pre-eminence of coal more apparent than in the planet's fastest-growing, most populous region: Asia, especially China.
Many energy and climate researchers believe that CCS is vital to avoiding a climate catastrophe. Because it could allow the globe to keep burning its most abundant fuel source while drastically reducing carbon dioxide and soot, it may be more important - though much less publicized - than any renewable-energy technology for decades to come. No less than Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning physicist who was US secretary of energy until last year, has declared CCS essential. "I don't see how we go forward without it," he says.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs projects that solar power will be cost-competitive with other electricity sources in the US by 2033. So will we build more coal plants or tear them down?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:27AM
So now we believe these "projections" simply because we like it? What makes you think they won't change their projection to 2050 when 2020 arrives? Are YOU ready to live with expensive electricity if those projections turned out wrong?
Are these the projections done using the same maths the gave us dotcom stock prices with 200+ P/E? Or those the gave us AAA ratings for Mortgage-backed securities?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:38AM
Do you care to share with us what exactly you mean by the above?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 27 2014, @04:36AM
I thought it was pretty clear.
You do not tear down one plant until you have the replacement on line and operational.
If you start tearing down coal plants today you have a long gap between today and 2033.
And given that the whole premise is based on some crazy ass projection by an investment company (which probably hasn't got a single qualified engineer on staff) the chances of 2033 being the magic year is slim to none.
so the wise choice is keep on developing clean-coal projects while you build solar and wind power, nuclear, perhaps even additional hydro projects.
What part of that was hard to understand.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:33AM
In the post I replied to, the part with my emphasis was not specifically said nor implied only.
Therefore, to my mind, one could not exclude the position of "Coal only" and What if we build a better world for nothing? [scienceblogs.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:18AM
That's a remarkably stupid cartoon. The question should be "What if we build a world that turns out not to be better for a huge cost?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 28 2014, @02:27AM
Well, I only can share with you my experience.
About 1 year and something ago, I installed PV panels on my roof. Cost: $7200.
After one year, they saved me about $1200 in power bills - and I'm not talking about the subsidized feed-in tariff (which, BTW, is absolutely marginal where I live; and I expect in next FY the feed-in tariff to be equal if not lower than what the draw-from-grid one plus I expect the cost of delivered electricity to raise).
Is my fragment of this world better? I can certainly say it is.
Was is a huge cost? I don't know... all I know is that I could afford it.
My point: stupid cartoon or not, we may choose to stay scared about the cost or, if we can afford it, we may try to make world better, piece by piece.
Question is: are you sure we can't afford it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 29 2014, @01:08PM
Even under near ideal US conditions (that you never have a cloudy day, that they track the Sun, and that the cost of the electricity that you displace is $0.20 per kWh), that's at least 2 kW of solar power generation (6 mWh divided by 8 hours per day for 365 days). So I guess it is possible to get such a system, if you can get the components for much lower than $3.60 per watt of peak generation capacity and live in a good location or have even higher electricity costs.
But I do wonder if that's the subsidized cost of your system.
All I've ever seen, even from research that supposedly evaluates this stuff, are glib assurances that downplay costs of CO2 mitigation (from such as fiddling around with the world's energy infrastructure or ignoring widespread defection, particularly of China and oil producing countries, from any mitigation plan) while simultaneously exaggerating the costs of adaptation to global warming (and often attributing to it mostly independent climate changes such as desertification - for example, Syria's recent drought). They also play accounting games. I'm thinking here of the Stern report's artificially low discount rate that increases the current perceived cost of distant future costs by significant amounts - I recall it doubled perceived costs about 100 years down the road compared to using US GDP growth (which incidentally is lower than world GDP growth) as the discount rate.
My view is that most such intervention is tolerable because it only affects a minor part of the economy. Interfering with packaging of products or recycling mandates, for example, don't waste that much in resources per person so they are under the radar and tolerable. But interfering with the energy infrastructure has much greater costs. For example, gasoline costs in Europe are about double the US's costs due primarily due to taxation (see without tax [eia.gov] versus with tax [eia.gov]).
Similarly, there are several countries [wikipedia.org] in Europe (Denmark and Germany) that have electricity costs double that of their neighbors and that for these two countries, the increased cost is solely due to their emphasis on renewable energy generation.
Doubled energy cost per unit doesn't actually translate into doubled energy costs overall (since there is more incentive to conserve energy), but that strikes me as a remarkably costly mitigation. And I don't buy that this would somehow not result in a huge economic hit (and a huge human tragedy) to double energy prices for the whole world.
Trying to make the world a better place is not the same thing as actually succeeding at making the world a better place.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 30 2014, @04:13AM
The installed power was 4.5 kW under ideal conditions. I installed it a bit over my needs because of 2 factors:
...
At the moment my installation went ahead, there were no subsidies [wikipedia.org].
However, the prev years subsidies increased the demand for PV installations, resulting in heaps of many local companies springing up; the competition increased sufficiently to keep the prices down - not unusual today to see offers for 5kW installed for under $7k (yes, $1.25/W installed).
Nowaday, even without subsidies, the people continue to install PV if only to lower their power bills.
Clearly, something is done the wrong way in US, the Germany and downunder experiences show it can be better.
A possible explanation... here's the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2013 study [lbl.gov] on the price difference between US and Germany. The conclusion - even the modules price is the same, the difference come from "soft costs" (invertors and installation mainly) which are much higher in US.
Forgive me for pointing out, but this sounds like the first rule of the tautology club [xkcd.com].
True, Germany (and Australia) chose to force "the golden hand of the free market fairy" - even if, essentially, the outcome would potentially have been the same after some more years.
Was is a success in making the world a better place? To early to call, the things are unfolding.
Was it a failure? Speaking for my part of the world, not at all; I'm glad that I could afford to become an electricity producer without spending zillions (which I couldn't afford) and I'm even more glad that I'm less dependent on the whims of the corporations.
In re "govt intervention" and "subsidies": I wonder if we (the humanity) would have ever reached the Moon or determined the mass of the Higgs boson if the free market alone would be the only factor to shape the progress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 30 2014, @05:35PM
Trying to make the world a better place is not the same thing as actually succeeding at making the world a better place.
Forgive me for pointing out, but this sounds like the first rule of the tautology club.
It's not. You can try more than once. But if your perception of the world is deeply flawed enough that you don't actually understand how to make it better, then all that trying is going to be useless. For example, you wrote:
Was is a success in making the world a better place? To early to call, the things are unfolding.
It doubled the price of electricity and gasoline in Germany without actually making a difference. And now Germany is a bit behind where it'd be, if it had delayed playing this particular game till now. So no.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 31 2014, @05:37AM
Your "So no" assertion is highly disputable: there's no advantage without a cost.
For example: Germany is better prepared now to support a possible "retaliatory natural gas price hike" by a Putin displeased of "economic sanctions following Crimea annexation" (very likely to happen) - yes, it will have an impact, but lower than if the electricity generation would have been LPG exclusively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 31 2014, @06:19AM
there's no advantage without a cost.
So what's the advantage of paying double for electricity/gasoline and making no difference on climate change? I agree, there's a cost. I don't agree that there is an advantage. For example, Germany could have simply delayed those renewable programs till now.
For example: Germany is better prepared now to support a possible "retaliatory natural gas price hike" by a Putin displeased of "economic sanctions following Crimea annexation" (very likely to happen) - yes, it will have an impact, but lower than if the electricity generation would have been LPG exclusively.
Which is a non sequitur since renewable energy increases demand for variable power generation like natural gas (which is ideal for smoothing variation in wind power generation).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 31 2014, @06:58AM
An exceptional claim you make here. Care to come with some exceptional proofs?
First, I didn't assert that Germany achieved independence from Russian LPG: I only said it is better prepared than others - say Ukraine or Poland (not to mention that LPG is not the only option: France's nuclear power plants can take quite a load)
Second - speaking for myself again: now that I have the PV-es installed, I started to look for buffers. Turns out that the cost for a battery buffer to allow me getting along without power from grid for 5 day amounts to somewhere around $10k-$12k, perhaps around $17k if I'd want to go with ultacapacitors [maxwell.com] (higher investment, lower maintenance cost based on the lifetime in discharge cycles) - think a huge UPS. Again, personal choice (and I don't pretend I'm typical/representative) it comes down to affordability: I can't right now, but it is in my plans on the next 5 years horizon.
What advantages I'm seeking? Primarily: the "UPS like functionality". Second, taking advantage of the electricity tariff differential between peak and non-peak hours - at the current rate, would take me about 20 years to RoI by: sucking in electricity at night time and pushing it back in the grid at day time (actually, pushing my entire PV generated electricity into the grid and consuming what I buffered during night).
It's entirely legal (I checked the contracts) and it benefits the society as well: I'd be providing the "grid-load smoothing services" on top of being able to withstand an outage 5 days long.
Would I'd be better off to invest that $12k-$17k in something else? Depends on the personal interpretation [xkcd.com] of "better off", don't you think? For certain, it will make my part of the world "greener" in regards with the CO2 footprint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 31 2014, @02:01PM
I'll attempt to format this correctly. I've been posting on Slashdot too much.
I've already noted the doubling of energy cost due to government policy in Germany. Second, look at figure 2.2 from this report [europa.eu] on page 11. The entire EU went from just over 4 billion tons of emitted CO2 per year to just under in the period from 1990 to 2013. That's perhaps 400 million tons reduction in CO2 emissions (and perhaps as much as a 10% reduction in emissions). Over that same period, the US inched up a little, perhaps 100 million tons of CO2 emissions increase (around 2% increase over the same period).
I think you can guess where I'm going with this. During that same period, China went from 3 billion tons of CO2 emissions to almost 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Even if the entire EU just didn't bother, it probably wouldn't mean more than a few hundred million tons of CO2 emissions per year (they have plenty of places they can extract cheap natural gas from too and take advantage of the North America's recent innovations in that area). IMHO, there's no way it's anywhere near 10% of China's annual contribution increase.
I see current climate mitigation policy as a gift to China. It hamstrings developed world economies and allows China to thrive on a larger, cheaper share of fossil fuels.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:34AM
Well, that's certainly not an argument of "Do nothing cause other are polluting more. Better wait until you are the top polluter".
Besides some say [worldwildlife.org] China could be capable to cover it's 80% of energy needs from renewables by 2050. And the Chinese seem [theguardian.com] pretty determined [chinamoneynetwork.com] to do so [spiegel.de] (guess what: the last link mentions Germany as best positioned to assist with the transition).
(I can only wish you'd stop being so obsessed with what country is ahead/winning - it's the people that matter, not the countries. Seriously, it blinds you in discerning what's essential)
Given that most of the currencies are fiat money, the price of fuel at the pump is almost irrelevant. Especially when comparing countries with different traditions (read: "way of doing things"), different population densities and different public transport coverages. What is more important is the quality of life, what people can do with those money. To exemplify:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:43AM
Do nothing because others are not only polluting a lot more than you are, they are able to increase their degree of polluting because you are sacrificing for them. Because Germany demands less oil, for example, China is able to consume more oil. Because Germany has exported some of its manufacturing elsewhere, due to high energy prices, then China is able to capture more of the manufacturing sector and pollute more as a result.
I can only wish you'd stop being so obsessed with what country is ahead/winning
The number one way a system fails is defection - someone finds a way to game the system at the expense of others. Voluntary greenhouse gases reduction measures only reward those who don't honor them. Here, the defections happen at the country level, hence, my obsession.
As to Germany's quality of life, they've been preying on the weaker members of the EU (another system with country level defection). How are they going to fare in the future when those food sources are no longer around? I guess I'm getting obsessed again.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @03:11AM
In the context of "the relevance of using prices/currency in comparisons".
I found an interesting reading in the 2001 winning essay in the "Utopian World Championship"... well it's utopian, I don't necessary "dream" for such a world, but there are some interesting considerations/ideas - currency is what stayed into the back of my mind for quite long (a memory that sprung back while putting together my answer to you):
* devaluation over time - that's natural, it happens with the today's currencies as well - is the only way to discourage excessive accumulation and allow growth to happen
*... but, hang on... a surprising idea: devaluation over space! What is necessary/vital in some areas of the world is irrelevant in others
The essay is available for download [utopianwc.com] on the organisation's site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 01 2014, @04:24AM
The essay isn't bad, but it's not very fresh. It feels like something that would have been thought up in the 19th century.
I guess that if you're going to do some utopian thinking, you should be thinking "transhuman" style. Technology never is a magic fix, but it stirs things up in a way that merely satisfying wants does not. And here, I think we're on the verge of transforming ourselves in ways that completely obsolete most current systems of thought. For example, what makes you human when you can become physically indistinguishable from another species? Or become a vast machine (eg, the sci fi story of a thinking space ship or building)? What is possible when artificial life forms are indistinguishable from natural ones? When the concept of species, that billion year old artifact of all of life's evolution itself becomes obsolete? When it may be possible for you to outlive the Sun? And of course, there's the possibility of the "post-scarcity" society where providing for a person is so cheap, it's not worth billing them for it.
Then there's the expansion into space. Here, the author merely notes in his scenario that "UFO clubs" want it but are having some trouble getting the rest of society on board with any sort of space activities. It's just a hobby to him rather than the answer to things that are mostly technological in nature (such as sustainable societies, post scarcity economies, diversification of global level risks).
Currently, the world is about 200-500 milliseconds across. That's how long it takes for near light speed signals to transverse the fastest of the convoluted networks that span Earth's surface or by satellite from any point on the surface of the Earth to any other point (and it covers the International Space Station as well). At best, we may figure out how to communicate straight through the Earth, which could cut the time to the theoretical minimum of about 42-43 milliseconds. This is as small as humanity will ever get unless at some point everyone gets crammed into the state of Texas or some other small region on the Earth's surface.
Go into space and things get big and distant again. Not so good for WoW or other social things on the computer, but great for kicking up diversity of societies and making new things happen.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 31 2014, @02:12PM
In addition, I think a number of us would find your set up and future plans interesting should you find a place to describe it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:37AM
Working on it. But... first things first: have something to describe :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3) by aristarchus on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:40AM
Ready? Heck no. But I am also not ready to pay less for electricity. So I guess we just abandon all attempts to project into the future with this magic thing called "math", and just rely on the mercy of our petrochemical (and coal!) masters. In the grand scale of things, cheap energy is pretty insignificant.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday March 27 2014, @04:40AM
Math, from Goldman Sachs, that's what you propose to trust?
When my flying car shows up at the nearest dealership, we can talk about reliable predictions. There are boatloads of people still employed trying to eek out a living after trusting Goldman.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:00AM
I've heard CCS offered as an argument why building a coal plant isn't so bad. However, CCS is listed as a future extension of the plant, not something to be built from day one. So until the day that CCS is actually implemented, the new coal plant will be sending a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Since CCS is still an immature technology, it is not clear yet how expensive it will be. Will the government have enough backbone to demand a planned CCS implementation to happen, or will they cave in when the energy company says it is too expensive?
One thing that we don't know is the effect of putting large amounts of CO2 into the ground. In the north of the Netherlands, a lot of natural gas was extracted and now small but frequent earthquakes are damaging houses there. Would pumping CO2 into the ground stabilize things or would it interact with the soil in a different way than methane and create an even more dangerous situation? Some effects won't be apparent until years later, so while it would be good to experiment with CCS, it may not be wise to deploy it on a very large scale until those experiments have been evaluated.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:15PM
The point of carbon sequestration was to create the myth that there is such a thing as "clean coal", so that nobody would pass laws or create programs that would interfere with the existing coal infrastructure.
Also, solar is already pretty economically viable: Paying the up-front cost to install solar panels on a house pays off in about 7 years on average. There are loan programs that make it so you can spread the up-front cost around, and also programs where you let the solar company put up the panels and batteries at their expense and then pay them for the electricity rather than your regular power company. Plus if you have another major power grid malfunction like we did in 2003, your solar panels are still working just fine.
Does it completely solve all energy problems? No. Is it useful and effective? Yes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by joekiser on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:06AM
Where's the nuclear option?
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Hartree on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:38AM
Oh, they reserve that for climate skeptics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:12AM
I guess the real nuclear option here would be to conserve energy as there is no good way to produce it.
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Thursday March 27 2014, @05:13PM
Fearmongers like Greenpeace killed it in the public opinion
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:49PM
The nuclear option is dead to some, until we run out of coal. So only a few years. China will be out of coal in about 25-30 years.
Remember in early 2000s when President Clinton proclaimed that nuclear is dead because we are entering a world of abundant and very inexpensive oil? Oil was at $25/bbl. Now, we are in a world of "free gas". Since that will run its course soon enough, we'll be back to the only thing remaining. Nuclear power.
Even Saudi Arabia wants nuclear power. There is very little space that has more sun. But Saudis have learned that solar is not 'free'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Sau di_Arabia [wikipedia.org]
So, Nuclear Option is not dead except in the heads of people that do not know any better.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 27 2014, @04:13AM
Don't forget that cement manufacturing releases lots of carbon dioxide AND uses ... building strong cement houses with coal provided electricity is win-win all around. ..."
lots of electricity (from 40% ? coal)?
Also fly-ash (coal burning by-product) is used in cement production?
Also cement alone is not strong so need iron -aka- rebar which can only be produced
with coke/coal?
so
"too busy counting money to read your application for connecting your puny solar to the grid
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:52AM
CCS - at least the usual forms of it, like pumping CO2 into caverns - is far more dangerous than most people suppose. Put millions, perhaps billions of cubic meters of compressed gas into a cavern. The cavern turns out not to be completely airtight, CO2 leaks out at ever-increasing rates, as the pressure expands the leak. CO2 is heaver than O2 and N2.
Take a calm day and imagine the expanding, invisible wave of suffocation...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Informative) by mascot on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:44AM
Here in the UK the government announced that no new Coal power stations would be built without CCS. There was one proposed power station, Hunterstone Clean Coal, which was to have CCS for 25% of its output. The power station was abandoned due to escalating costs and now no CCS power plants are proposed. Instead old coal power plants will be kept on the system for longer. These are now very lucrative as coal has fallen in price (largely due to being displaced from the American market by cheap gas). Coal has actually been steadily growing as a component of our energy mix.
There is a demonstration CCS plant in Norway and some capacity on the drawing board in the USA but not much activity. This is one of those big things that gets talked about far more than it gets done.
There is no real technical challenge- indeed Carbon Dioxide is sometimes injected into oil wells to improve oil recovery (see enhanced oil recovery). The oil industry has probably done far more CO2 injection than the CCS industry. The challenge is entirely commercial- the bottom line is governments don't want to provide the subsidies necessary for CCS to be commercially attractive. Coal power without CCS will always be cheaper than Coal Power with CCS- I think the price rise is about 25% assuming that a geologicaly suitable aquifer is available and close ( a big if).
TL;DR The Propaganda war on climate change has swung in favor of the skeptics and fossil fuel industry so governments aren't minded to fund this work in a meaningful way
(Score: 3, Interesting) by geb on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:46AM
Kentucky has several groups working on the use of algae farms as carbon capture systems. The systems require vast arrays glass pipes exposed to sunlight so that the algae have enough energy to grow and absorb CO2.
They are quite seriously attempting to build coal-fired solar power plants.
The motivation for this is explicitly not to close the loop. The algae is treated as a waste product, sold as biofuel feedstock so that the carbon ends up in the atmosphere anyway. In the meantime, the power plant still keeps buying coal.
I find it hard to imagine a society so hopelessly addicted to coal that this seems like a good idea.
(Score: 1) by mascot on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:55AM
Actually I think this is not a terrible idea.
CO2 enrichment is the key to raising yields in algae biofuels so the first algae biofuel projects are built near fossil fuel plants so they can use the C02.
The C02 does end up in the atmosphere anyway but its better to get energy out of oxidising carbon twice rather than once no?
What we need is a hefty tax on the extraction of fossil fuels (rather than crazy subsidies). Trying to tax carbon and measure emissions is a buerocratic mess. Trying to craft individual subsidies and grants for each renewable technology is even worse. Easier by far to tax fossil fuel extraction because its hard to dodge, easy to measure and simple to administer.
Maybe we could offer a rebate to petrochemical companies.
(Score: 2) by geb on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:35PM
The technology by itself is interesting, and could be used in sensible ways.
My objection to it is that it was quite nakedly being used to support the continued use of coal, while appearing vaguely environmentally sound. It would be much better used as a closed loop, incinerating dried algae for power, rather than greenwashing coal and hiding the emissions elsewhere.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:15PM
Altering the energy generation, distribution and application processes of a long-established global society is possibly the toughest engineering, social, political and scientific upheaval the human race has ever considered self-imposing. It's not that we're addicted to coal, we're just resistant to change and I'm not at all surprised how long the argument for doing this has gone on for.
The biggest head-scratcher is how to power our transportation infrastructure. That's a hell of a lot of portable energy to find new sources for. The maths I've seen from several sources on opposing sides agree that nuclear and renewables cannot power everything without burning through all the known and proven exploitable nuclear fuel in a few decades. You can't mass-motivate people to change through fear alone, you need an achievable golden future to point to before they'll get off their arses and open their wallets.
(Score: 1) by mascot on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:11PM
The maths I've seen from several sources on opposing sides agree that nuclear and renewables cannot power everything without burning through all the known and proven exploitable nuclear fuel in a few decades.
Citation needed
If we want to it is possible to power our current energy consumption from nuclear power alone for several hundred years.
David MacKay estimates http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml/ [withouthotair.com] that known uranium reserves could provide over 1000 years;
0.55 kWh per day per person using once-through reactors
33 kWh per day per person using fast-breeder reactors
420 kWh per day per person using fast-breeder reactors and oceanic uranium extraction. This is more than current consumption.
This is before counting Thorium or renewables.
It's not impossible!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:01PM
That link 404s, but never mind. Thinking back, the article I was paraphrasing was written by a douchebag on The Register and is one of the reasons I stopped reading it, so I really shouldn't have said that. So, time for some bag-of-an-envelope maths with hastily procured and unverified figures! Yay Internet! (NB: I'm not anti-nuclear power, I'm most definitely pro nuclear with a mix of renewables and a tail-off for fossils as the technology and usage patterns improve.)
Starting with: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH .PC [worldbank.org]
Using these figures to calculate per head electricity consumption in KWh/day:
US = 36.29 kwh/day
UK = 15.11 kwh/day
That's without factoring in replacement of petroleum and natural gas with their nuclear-powered equivalents (if they exist/are viable), and assuming we can replace solid fuel use with renewable clean wood burners. Bad assumptions, hate them!
Let's move on to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equiv alent [wikipedia.org]e l_Economy [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fu
(God, Wikipedia, I feel dirty already)
Using these figure for gasoline gallon equivalency, using the base figure in US gallons of 33.41kwh/gal, and (kinda randomly) assuming the mid-size vehicle CAFE 2020 target figure of 42.5mpg works out... yeah, it's lunch time, and I can't be that bothered ;)
That works out to an ambitious-seeming equivalent of 1.272 Miles / kWh for personal transport.
I don't have time to figure out how to factor transport of food and other shop-purchased goods into this personal allowance, so please post a working link to that article. I'd love to read it but it seems hopelessly optimistic to me right now.
Thus we see a perfect example of the problems facing the human race - even people who sit down and work out the math will never agree on a course of action. Curse those statistics...
(Score: 1) by atan on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:44PM
Fixed link: http://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml [withouthotair.com]
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:43PM
Hmm, it's somewhat ambiguous there, it doesn't state whether what that 16kg of fossil fuels includes indirectly consumed energy for manufacturing and transport of consumed goods. Does that text go into that figure anywhere?
Also, from the next page:
"...no-one has yet demonstrated uranium-extraction from seawater on an industrial scale"
If no-one figures that technology out and industrial/transport energy use isn't included in the calculations, those uranium lifetime calculations are meaningless.
The figures he uses are crap too. The personal allowance calculations are also based on a planetary human population of 6 billion, not 7.1, so the actual figure for breeder reactors and ground uranium is more like 27.9khw/d per human and dropping on a daily basis. Let's not murky the waters further by uttering the words "energy poverty" either, this really isn't the place to open that can of worms.
I still can't find that article asserting the decades-long lifespan of the uranium supply given certain usage cases, it's bugging me now. I remember it was published on The Register a few years, but that's all. I think it may have been from a UK-only standpoint now I think about it, I'd love to run the figures by you. Kerr!
(Score: 2) by geb on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:30PM
"The maths I've seen from several sources on opposing sides agree that nuclear and renewables cannot power everything without burning through all the known and proven exploitable nuclear fuel in a few decades."
You make it sound as though renewables are fundamentally useless without nuclear to back them up.
If we chose to build enough infrastructure to capture it, there's enough sunlight and wind to meet our current energy needs thousands of times over. We're not going to run out of places to put solar panels or turbines.
It's not a question of whether renewable energy is available, it's a matter of how much to spend in capturing it for use.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @07:50PM
When someone speaks of alternative energy, we hear all about the various energy costs involved, such that one gets the impression we could freeze the whole planet to absolute zero just by using a solar calculator. With nuclear we hear all about how it produces waste that will apparently remain dangerous 50 years after the universe ends.
Yet for oil, nobody speaks of all the oil we burn drilling, refining, and shipping fossil fuels. For coal, it's just pump the pollution into big storage tanks (where it will never decay, not even in 10,000 years). And we don't talk at all about the towns that had to be abandoned and are now being consumed by massive underground coal fires.