Energy Crisis Solved by Science

[BlueMage]

*possibly/probably a double post, but screw it, I felt the need to comment on this*

As to solutions: Wire every house, every building, with at least a 2kW solar array. BAM! Insta-decentralised-grid during the day. Sure, might need a few other plants here and there for the load overnight, but consider that most folks aren't at home during the day, so those cells can just sit there, generating electricity, and charging batteries. All I can say is BAM!

The reasons we don't do that in the United States is:
1) Solar panels of that quality are expensive to sell, even with tax incentives.
2) Decentralizing the grid in such a fashion sounds really great on paper, but in practice the grid works because it can run within a tolerably predictable pattern of loading/unloading.

Remember: Unspent Electricity doesn't just vanish into the Aether. People complain about major blackouts due to overloading the grid? UNDERLOADING is just as much of a threat. Why? Because backing off generation doesn't come at the drop of a hat. If you back off too much, you get brownouts. If you don't back off quickly enough, then you do what's calling "Tripping the grid/reactor".
In short, overcharging the grid is BAD. Very bad.

So even if you did accomplish the pipe dream of standardized solar panels, you have now introduced the element of weather into the equation, which is a *highly* fickle force to predict on its own, and by its mechanics cannot be relied upon to provide sufficient off-grid generation in every climate.

Now, I do agree with solar generation in principle; it's going to become critical to address widescale electrical generation in the near future, and I'm wouldn't hold my breath on "miracle sources" such as fusion to become viable before then.

However, backing off from our existing primary fuel sources will take careful planning, pragmatic/scientific thinking and far more freedom from politics and business than our current system provides.

Hence battery-banks sir. An understanding of night-time base-load (plus 15 to 20%) in battery capacity can be recharged throughout the day. You may also notice I didn't eliminate all other plants - merely that each residence become a miniature generation facility as well.

To be fair, I'm giving a relatively simple answer, and I appreciate that you've gone into more depth than I have here.

 

[Triforceformer]

This sounds all good, but approximately how much Actinouranium is there in the world?

Australia has vast, untapped quantities. Bow to us.

...Tell me. Does Actinouranium allow someone who stays in contact with it to develop amazing intellect, large muscles, and mustaches? Does it also have a picture of an Australian boxing a kangaroo naturally engraved upon it? If so, then I better get to work on my immortality machine.

 

[fates_puppet13]

there are flaws
all fisson fules are non renewable
uranium fuel is highly toxic and easily souble
also as rare as they are nuclear fires and core meltdowns are catastrophic

however nuclear power is alot safer than its given credit

Say what you will about Nuclear Power, it's still killed less people (directly, or indirectly) than what we're currently using.

entirely true

 

[BlueMage]

This sounds all good, but approximately how much Actinouranium is there in the world?

Australia has vast, untapped quantities. Bow to us.

...Tell me. Does Actinouranium allow someone who stays in contact with it to develop amazing intellect, large muscles, and mustaches? Does it also have a picture of an Australian boxing a kangaroo naturally engraved upon it? If so, then I better get to work on my immortality machine.

Absolutely. We keep a carefully-bred stock of "normal people" to present a public face of Australia to the rest of the world that you can look upon as peers. Be grateful, for if we were to reveal our true, enriched glory, you would fall to your knees in awe.

We also have an excellent stock of comedians. You may know them internationally as "The Australian Labour Party" and "The Australian Liberal Party."

 

[Atmos Duality]

Sure, but sun collectors don't have a chance of going into nuclear meltdown. However, I was mostly thinking about how after the Japanese Fukushima thing a lot of people might not be too fond of a new and unestablished form of nuclear power plant.

No, they don't. And they also cannot provide anywhere near the energy demands of modern society on their own.

And of course, as I suspected, the first and ONLY response I get is the ubiquitous "meltdown"; a pet peeve of mine but an important identifier.
Just for future reference, "meltdown" isn't a scientific term. Try as you might, you won't find it in any nuclear textbook. It was invented by the mass-media and is used by them on an ignorant public.
The correct term is "super-critical", but that doesn't strike instant fear into the public like "meltdown" does, does it?

 

[Quijiboh]

Nuclear power of any kind, although playing a big role, can't solve the energy crisis on its own because you can't power vehicles (except boats) with it. Without most modes of transport, there will be no global food and goods network, and no country is anywhere near being self sufficient at this point.

Well funny enough, it potentially could. The coming decades will need to see transport almost entirely revamped, and a huge amount of automobile traffic in the world could be replaced by trains, which could easily be electrified and run off of nuclear power. You've also got the potential for electric cars, which could make up almost everything that legitimately needs personal automobile use. Also, the global food and transport network is a bit shoddy in it's basic idea; you could save a lot of energy by just making things close to you rather than shipping it halfway around the world.

just hook nuclear plant up to electric water-splitter. BAM, mobile hydrogen fuel.

Both of these are solutions in the long run, but they also require a substantial retrofit of the entire global transport netowrk, which doesn't happen overnight. That is also assuming that the will to do such a thing is there, when in fact there's still massive opposition on a consumer and corporate level to major change in the way we move around. For instance, here in the UK something like 71% of people still commute to work by car, and train users are also outnumber by the people who walk and cycle. Meanwhile, the point where fossil fuel demand outpaces production is approaching fast.

Making things close to you sounds like a fairly sensible idea, but the practicalities of doing so are vastly complicated, especially with food. For example, only about six countries (US, Russia, Brazil and a couple of others I can't remember) are net exporters of grain. The rest of the world that are net importers largely lacks the capacity to ramp up production to cover that gap (which is why they started importing in the the first place). 'Bioregionalism', where everything is produced and remains within your local 'bioregion' is a more popular idea in the States, because the US is one of the few places here such a thing is practically feasible.

 

[Elementlmage]

Not true, it's just the MIT has been trying to go to big to fast. There is a scientist in Britain who has made a working reactor that is safe enough to run on his office desk while he is sitting next to it.

It is rather ingenious; instead of attempting to trigger fusion through a high temp/high pressure reaction and then attempting to contain the result, he uses a pair of high energy dually opposed "fuel injectors" to fire streams of hydrogen at each other and trigger fusion through the impact. The result is an easily containable "micro" fusion reaction(the stray particles can be held in the container with a magnetized Faraday Cage), that produces huge (comparably) net energy yields and is dirt cheap to manufacture.

Source?

This one slipped past me, I am interested in reading more.

Unfortunately I have forgotten where I read it (don't look at me like that, you know you've done it too!), so this may take some extending searching...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

Not the one I was talking about, but certainly interesting... ew nickel, never mind.

.
.
.
.

EWHHHEHWEWW Christian Science Monitor has tainted my browser! Get it off, GET IT OFF!

Ah! Here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetized_target_fusion

Certainly not the article I was discussing, but it does a good job of explaining the concept and its viability. And yes, we need to be dumping absurd amounts of money into this!

 

[Elementlmage]

Not true, it's just the MIT has been trying to go to big to fast. There is a scientist in Britain who has made a working reactor that is safe enough to run on his office desk while he is sitting next to it.

It is rather ingenious; instead of attempting to trigger fusion through a high temp/high pressure reaction and then attempting to contain the result, he uses a pair of high energy dually opposed "fuel injectors" to fire streams of hydrogen at each other and trigger fusion through the impact. The result is an easily containable "micro" fusion reaction(the stray particles can be held in the container with a magnetized Faraday Cage), that produces huge (comparably) net energy yields and is dirt cheap to manufacture.

Source?

This one slipped past me, I am interested in reading more.

Also:

http://www.physorg.com/news168623833.html

Certainly nothing close to what I was talking about, but it looks like some crazy fun doesn't it!

OOOOH, really fun idea!!!:

Q far greater than 1 have been achieved in thermonuclear bombs but only a few slightly mad people have suggested to use them for generating power(by detonating them underground, heating up a large volume of rock and using it as a geothermal reservoir).

MWUAHAHAHA >

 

[Brodie Jenkins]

"Energy Crisis Solved by Science"
I'm pretty sure nobody expect magic to be the solution

 

[Atmos Duality]

Hence battery-banks sir. An understanding of night-time base-load (plus 15 to 20%) in battery capacity can be recharged throughout the day. You may also notice I didn't eliminate all other plants - merely that each residence become a miniature generation facility as well.

To be fair, I'm giving a relatively simple answer, and I appreciate that you've gone into more depth than I have here.

Battery-banks cannot solve that simply due to the irregular nature of weather.
The grid *is* a battery bank in its own way; each line and load bearer has an innate amount of effective capacitance. This is why our power grid doesn't fail every day.
Redundancy is built into the system to provide both alternative paths, but to also provide points of stress relief from electrical pressure.

Recall what I said about "overcharging the grid" earlier?
The Blackout of the Eastern Seaboard/Ontario in 2003 was caused by the last two redundant backbone lines in Ohio taking on FOUR TIMES their registered load. The copper lines were literally sagging and MELTING off the line before they finally broke contact and tripped the system out for good, causing the daisy-chain of unit trips that caused the blackout of about 10 million customers.

Allegedly, it took about three trees within the span of an hour to cause the whole incident.

 

[DanDeFool]

`Actinouranium'? So... nuclear power then? And I'm pretty sure people have died while mining for Uranium (though I will agree, there have been no deaths due to mining in the US -- mainly because it's not mined in the US).

Probably a different set of hazards, though yes, also quite dangerous. However, given so-called "alternative energy's" current lack of cost-effectiveness, we may not have a choice.

Also, note to people: Actinouranium = highly enriched uranium = weapons-grade uranium. Make of that what you will, though somehow I doubt a terrorist group is going to be interested in stealing uranium from a running nuclear reactor.

Course, that doesn't mean they couldn't get someone to sell them the stuff. Just saying.

 

[Krion_Vark]

The death toll for nuclear power per Terrwatt hour generated is 10 times lower than wind power.

I am not making this up, wind power is 10 times more deadly than nuclear power.

Deer are 300 times more deadly than sharks. But I am still gone be more careful around sharks.

More people die in airplane crashes than getting struck by lightning but I am sure as hell staying indoors during a lightning storm.

 

[Elementlmage]

Windmills and solar panels don't blow up chum.

Would you care to retract that statement?

Solar:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/S_OSUTHGpcI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/AWMQ3e6zZ2k/s320/SEGS-I-fire_caption.png
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/AV-explosion.html

Wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo
http://whenwindturbinesgobad.blogspot.com/

The dangers of nuclear power is not simply measured in deaths.

You want to argue about land contamination? Okay, let's. The fossil fuel industry results in 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES7-7.gif

Burning coal emits 100 times the radiation of a similarly sized nuclear fission plant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

A typical 500kw Coal plant generates approx 26.5 tons of waste every month. Not counting waste water discharge. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

The environmental impact of coal production is well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_coal_mining_and_burning

List of coal mine related accidents, coal plant accidents not included. http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm

Nuclear waste production roughly 20-30 tons/month per reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#Radioactive_waste

Approximately 488 sqkm of radioactively contaminated land has been reclaimed from the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl by wildlife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_after_the_disaster

Fukashima exposure levels comparison to other sources. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Total list of all civilian nuclear accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

And finally a cost comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

That's right. Nuclear plants cost as much as coal, produce roughly the same amount of hard waste, are virtually twice as safe, and are in fact LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN COAL PLANTS.

You mean absolutely false statements like "U-235 is a renewable energy resource?

Absolutely false? Are you that poorly informed? Yes, you are evidently.

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Consider yourself schooled.

I fucking love you!

I wonder if I can get a T-shirt of that XKCD chart...

 

[FalloutJack]

Now waiting for the appearance of Godzilla...

 

[mad825]

I believe any fission based nuclear power plants are inefficient no matter what.

Science cares not for what you 'believe'; nuclear power is, when compared to other power sources, efficient.

Erm...Okay.

Geothermal and Hydroelectric are far more efficient if the right location can be found but still, fission is inefficient that includes on how long they take to be built, dismantled and the lifespan; 30-40 years.

They are the second most efficient thermal based power plants,yes. Only because there are no combustibles used (obviously) in the process.

 

[blackjack117200]

Meh, just shove the left over reagents in a mountian and let future generations worry about it, "I won't be alive so why should I care"

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Hence battery-banks sir. An understanding of night-time base-load (plus 15 to 20%) in battery capacity can be recharged throughout the day. You may also notice I didn't eliminate all other plants - merely that each residence become a miniature generation facility as well.

To be fair, I'm giving a relatively simple answer, and I appreciate that you've gone into more depth than I have here.

Battery-banks cannot solve that simply due to the irregular nature of weather.

Fortunately, there are these wonderful environments called deserts, which have sunny weather year-round. The best part is that there's a desert on every continent, except for Europe. But who cares about Europe : P

Meh, just shove the left over reagents in a mountian and let future generations worry about it, "I won't be alive so why should I care"

You may find this article amusing

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/05/10/yucca_mountain

And this is for giggles:

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I'm still confused on what these new 'Kernel' power plant are...Don't tell me, it runs on Vista?

All forms of energy sources emit CO2 either primarily or secondarily and I believe any fission based nuclear power plants are inefficient no matter what.

Your Vista reference reminded me of this:

Fusion or bust. Unless you find a suitable way of storing the waste materials (which can also be used for great destruction) then fission creates more problems than it solves.

Fission is good, but still has some massive drawbacks. Fusion is the fu[small]sion[/small]ture
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004mz38

Come on engineers, get your skates on, I think fusion power's great... ...because no ones ever talked about the problems it may have. Yaay optimisim

 

[Blue_vision]

Nuclear power of any kind, although playing a big role, can't solve the energy crisis on its own because you can't power vehicles (except boats) with it. Without most modes of transport, there will be no global food and goods network, and no country is anywhere near being self sufficient at this point.

Well funny enough, it potentially could. The coming decades will need to see transport almost entirely revamped, and a huge amount of automobile traffic in the world could be replaced by trains, which could easily be electrified and run off of nuclear power. You've also got the potential for electric cars, which could make up almost everything that legitimately needs personal automobile use. Also, the global food and transport network is a bit shoddy in it's basic idea; you could save a lot of energy by just making things close to you rather than shipping it halfway around the world.

Both of these are solutions in the long run, but they also require a substantial retrofit of the entire global transport netowrk, which doesn't happen overnight. That is also assuming that the will to do such a thing is there, when in fact there's still massive opposition on a consumer and corporate level to major change in the way we move around. For instance, here in the UK something like 71% of people still commute to work by car, and train users are also outnumber by the people who walk and cycle. Meanwhile, the point where fossil fuel demand outpaces production is approaching fast.

Making things close to you sounds like a fairly sensible idea, but the practicalities of doing so are vastly complicated, especially with food. For example, only about six countries (US, Russia, Brazil and a couple of others I can't remember) are net exporters of grain. The rest of the world that are net importers largely lacks the capacity to ramp up production to cover that gap (which is why they started importing in the the first place). 'Bioregionalism', where everything is produced and remains within your local 'bioregion' is a more popular idea in the States, because the US is one of the few places here such a thing is practically feasible.

Well there's not really any other option. Oil's going to run out sometime, the question is how prepared we are for it. Obviously, it'd take decades to completely retrofit transport, let alone civilization itself, to be carbon-free. But if we want to be laughing when the time comes that we'd ordinarily be in a terrible crisis, we have to start changing things now. Stop building highways, petroleum-guzzling vehicles, and factories to produce goods for halfway around the world. We can't just sit around talking about how things are going to go to shit in the future without doing anything at the same time to try to stop it.

Food is a rather more complicated issue to solve, but it's not preventing us from stopping shipping pretty much everything else around the world. And food could at least be coordinated to be sent closer to its place of production. We could at least keep foods destined for North America grown in North America (South America-South America, general area in Asia to general area in Asia.) It doesn't even need to be an 100-mile diet: if I could get kiwis from Mexico (not sure of the specifics on those, I feel like they could be grown right here in Ontario,) instead of New Zealand, maybe shipped by electrified rail instead of plane or transport truck, the entire thing could potentially run on clean energy, and far less energy than it ordinarily would.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Nuclear power is certainly a superior alternative to coal, without any doubt, so long as the government does proper regulation on the plants to ensure they don't.. y'know, melt down.

So I wouldn't support nuclear power under republicans. 'Less regulation!' doesn't mesh well with radioactive materials.