A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

[Boerseun]

Harvesting power from the Moon is easy.

 

Build a large, shallow dam close to a spot at the coast where the tidal difference is pretty high.

Let high tide fill your dam, and at low tide let the water empty again through an array of turbines.

Because the drop won't be far enough to really make it worthwhile in terms of output, you need a heck of a big dam with a helluva lot of turbines.

 

But that, in effect, will be tapping energy from the Moon.

 

Maybe there's some desert somewhere that's useless for anything else that can be converted into a huge tidal reservoir, but the energy input in emptying the hundreds of square miles of sand required for your dam will probably nullify the output from your dam, which'll have only a few meters' drop, usable only for a couple o' hours every day.

 

Bad idea.

 

A much better idea will be to have cheap, erosion-resistant (say, carbon-fibre or fibreglass) turbines dropped in the sea.

 

Imagine:

 

They're lighter than water, so they wanna float. If not, attach the necessary floats. Then you add an anchor (say, a cheap block of concrete) to it, strung to a cable so that you can set the required height off the seafloor, and have a generator attached to two counter-rotating turbines (so as torque isn't an issue) with a vertical and horisontal stabiliser (like a plane's tailplane) so that they'll always be facing the stream. Obviously, your turbines should be pretty big, 'cause they'll turn only as fast as the stream is moving. But you have a step-up gearbox at your generator, so the generator will be turning at a fair clip.

 

And then, you dump hundreds of these suckers into the sea where there's a strong stream. I'm talking Agulhas current, the Gulf Stream, places where the global streams are bottlenecked, like Cape Horn, south of Cape Agulhas, between North and South Islands in New Zealand, Hokkaido in Japan - there's plenty places.

 

Then you waterproof a couple of sturdy cables, connect them all together, and run the current to the nearest land where you've got distribution centers, etc. The technology developed with undersea intercontinental phone cables suggest that this won't be too much of a hassle.

 

There's more than enough torque in seawater travelling at a few kilometers per hour to make that gennie spin at thousands of RPM with a proper gearbox included. And this can be done so cheap that in my mind, it really makes for a strong contender in the future energy game. If the output of an individual generator is relatively small, so what? Go with the economy of scale! Chuck in thousands more! They're cheap!

 

You need to buy ZERO land for this, there's ZERO polluting, it's out of sight, ceramic bearings can be utilized so that there'll be minimal failure and minimal maintenance, it's predictable - at a wind farm, you're stuffed when the wind stops. At a solar collection plant, you're stuffed when the sun sets. Using this, you have energy 24/7, which is actually just solar energy, but with much higher, more usable torque than what wind gives you. And those streams I mentioned runs 24/7, come rain, sleet or snow... At night, during the day, winter, summer, they just keep on chuggin'.

 

The input making the world's oceans churn, is the sun. The same input for wind. But wind is flaky, weak energy density, and windfarms spoils the scenery, apart from using up acres of land.

 

This, to me, makes sense. Much more so than nuclear-, coal- oil- or gas-fired power plants. Or many of the proposed alternatives, for that matter.

[geokker]

I was thinking of hurling up a lasso. :eek2:

 

I agree that harnessing the motion of water due to lunar gravity is compelling. Water has a lot of mass. Trying to stop a large body of water from moving is a difficult task. There is literally the power of the moon in the oceans - this is the lasso.

 

I also agree that millions of small, cheap turbines would be more effective than few, huge jobbies. Connecting all the nodes to a grid sounds like a challenge though. Considering that 99.99994%* of the volume of Earths waters are empty, it's a good idea to put them (it?) to work.

 

Yes, I made this up.

[Tagred]

I find these hard to believe, what are your sources?

OK, not free but close :eek2:

For Iceleland their average domestic cost in 2003 was $130p.a http://www.statice.is/?pageid=1253&src=/temp_en/visitolur/neysla.asp

 

For the UK electricity, i got that completely wrong, I apologise. There is a target to achieve 10% wind energy by 2010 rising to 15% by 2015.

 

Think I should really check my sources properly next time :xx:

[UncleAl]

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

 

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

 

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

 

mi^2

Area, Modality

====================

1000 biomass

300 wind

60 solar

0.3 nuclear

 

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

 

Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

[geokker]

I think the heat of your rage will fill the gap. :evil:

[damocles]

Harvesting power from the Moon is easy.

 

Nope. Engineering scales are against you.

 

Build a large, shallow dam close to a spot at the coast where the tidal difference is pretty high.

Let high tide fill your dam, and at low tide let the water empty again through an array of turbines.

Because the drop won't be far enough to really make it worthwhile in terms of output, you need a heck of a big dam with a helluva lot of turbines.

 

A Katrina event will smash it. The very areas that are your prime candidates for such a tidal generator system, are also in the primary storm paths.

 

A much better idea will be to have cheap, erosion-resistant (say, carbon-fibre or fibreglass) turbines dropped in the sea.

 

Objections;

1. barnacles grow on it.

2. algae grows on it.

3. plankton clogs it

4. fish clogs it.

5. bearings seize up from calcite precipitation out of sea water.

 

How are you going to keep ten thousand turbines CLEAN?

[geokker]

Perhaps the turbines could be renewable/biodegradable so they have a short, replaceable lifespan.

[Skippy]

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

 

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

 

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

 

mi^2

Area, Modality

====================

1000 biomass

300 wind

60 solar

0.3 nuclear

 

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

Uncle AL,

Stanford Scientist say we can get enough energy from the wind.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/may25/wind-052505.html

A partial quote..."...After analyzing more than 8,000 wind-speed measurements to identify the world's wind-power potential for the first time, Cristina Archer, a former postdoctoral fellow, and Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, suggest that wind captured at specific locations, if even partially harnessed, can generate more than enough power to satisfy the world's energy demands. Their report appears in the May Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union."

[Skippy]

I find these hard to believe, what are your sources?

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/wind/wind.asp

...and...

France Wind Capacity Has Doubled Since 2001 Tariff Law Passed

Denis Du Bois

February 25, 2005

The French branch of Boralex announced its plans to construct two new wind energy production sites in the mountainous French region known as the Massif Central. The 38 turbines will have a total capacity of 57 MW, bringing the company's total capacity in France to 81 MW.

 

France has 386 MW of installed wind energy capacity. The industry was given a boost by an electricity feed-in tariff law passed in 2001. Operators of wind energy projects receive guaranteed rates of EU€0.08 (US$0.11) per kWh for the first five years. Wind capacity in France has more than doubled since the law was passed.

 

Even so, France remains one of the smallest wind energy producers in Europe, far behind the 16,600 MW that the regional leader Germany has installed. In France, nuclear power makes up the majority of the energy production. The country has very limited fossil fuel resources, and meager prospects for increasing its hydropower production.

 

The European Union has 34,200 MW of installed wind energy capacity, and has the aggressive target of generating 22 percent of its electricity from wind by 2010.

 

Of the 38 new French turbines, 26 will be constructed in the province of Haute-Loire, and 12 will be located in Ardèche. The turbines have the capacity to generate 1.5 MW each under ideal wind conditions. Both sites are expected to be online by December, 2005.

 

Boralex owns a 95 percent stake in the project, while Perfect Wind holds the remaining five percent. The project required an investment of more than EU€83.5 million (US$110.6 million), to be financed by a major French bank. Boralex contracted with GE Wind Energy and Cégélec Sud-Ouest for the construction.

 

All of the output will be sold to Electricité de France (EDF) under a 15-year contract. The 30-year land lease is renewable for another 30 years at Boralex's option.

 

Claude Audet, president of Boralex, says his company has developed considerable expertise in wind energy and is well positioned to pursue a larger share of the wind industry in all regions of France. "The French wind sector is just getting started and shows great promise," says Audet. "The enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol last week is excellent news for the industry."

 

The Canadian company specializes in hydroelectric, thermal, cogeneration and wind energy. Boralex has a total installed wind capacity of 252 MW in France, Quebec and the US. In addition, Boralex manages another 190 MW of wind projects, in which it holds a 23 percent stake.

[damocles]

http://www.cslforum.org/ec.htm

 

Consult:

 

Table 6: Installed Electricity Generation Capacity in European Union, 1993-2002

(in thousands of megawatts)

 

For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

 

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

 

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.

2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.

3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.

4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

 

Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 1993 EU is 16.7% of total.

GSWB was 0.6% of the total.

 

Ratio of nonrenewable to renewable electrical generation 2003 EU is 18.9% of total.

GSWB was 3.7% of the total.

 

That 2.2 % change in total ratios in renewables over the nine year period was almost entirely due to GSWB. As I said is its total contribution to power generation remains insignificant.

 

It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

 

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

 

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.

2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.

3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.

4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.

5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

 

And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

 

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

 

Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

 

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

 

When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

 

Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

[Guest JennFinn]

What about some of Tesla's ideas. I'm wondering if there are any groups or companies out there trying to put his "Wireless Transmission Of Power" theories to work? Does anyone know?

[erich]

Excellent post Damocles:.

 

From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs. ( Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html )

 

And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=75000009 )

 

 

Jennfinn:

 

There are many Tesla groups working , but a Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/ on them makes me dought their viability.

[Boerseun]

For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

 

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

 

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.

2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.

3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.

4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

A 700% increase, over nine years, INSIGNIFICANT?!? How, exactly?

It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

 

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

 

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.

2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.

3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.

4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.

5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

As to:

 

1. As opposed to thermal or nuclear power stations that generates no pollutants in its manufacture? Duh? The difference here, being, that GSWB doesn't produce pollutants when in operation - unlike your alternatives, thermal and nuclear. So point one is blown out of the water.

2. Refer to the previous point. That's a pretty silly justification.

3. Huge footprint - sure. The US thermal energy complex has a footprint that spans halfway around the globe via the atmosphere. Brazilian treefrogs choke on their mosquitos so that the US can have streetlamps burning at ungodly hours. The difference here, is that per kilowatt the GSWB footprint might be considerably larger - but its effect on the ecosystem stops at the fencepost. Go GSWB!!!

4. HUH???

5. Compare healthcosts and ecological damage due to thermal/nuclear power generation. Add that cost to your electricity generation bill. Check you efficiency stats once more.

And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

 

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

Hey - let's throw all our eggs in one basket and use carbon-based fuels for our electricity generation! Let's rely on oil till the last drop in another twenty years' time! When the oil is finished, we're stuffed - but who cares; it's another 20 years away! And you call GSWB psychotic?! At best, I think you've made yourself guilty of a horribly unfortunate choice of words.

Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

 

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

Suggestion. After the above visitation, go visit any thermal power plant. Not only the plant itself, but the surrounds. Go and take air samples and precipitation acidity levels thousands of miles away downwind. THAT's your coal/oil-fired power station's footprint. Then go to the surrounding towns and test the locals for lung disease, etc. See the drop in agricultural output downwind as opposed to the same soil upwind. Also, keep in mind the crap coming out of those power stations after the input is burnt off.

Don't EVER call GSWB-type installations 'abortive contraptions' if the above is the alternative!

When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

Electrolysis of seawater with power you get from where? What makes you think the production process in building a hydrogen fuel cell involves less poison? Last time I checked, that was a particularly filthy thing to manufacture!

Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

The power of the individual will eventually most likely be how wisely he applies his mind to survive on this planet whilst keeping the rest of the planet in mind. Using resources in such a selfish way as if there's no tomorrow will ultimately lead to humankind's eventual end. Shooting down or retarding GSWB development because you've got a huge investment in carbon energy, and damn the rest, is no way for a government to behave.

[damocles]

Reply to Boerseun

 

Re: A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

 

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

 

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.

2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.

3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.

4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

 

A 700% increase, over nine years, INSIGNIFICANT?!? How, exactly?

 

GSWB output increased 700 percent. Valid stat.; but a deliberate misread of total EU generating capacity impact for the period. A 2.2% increase when GSWB was the primaryinvested effort at increasing generating capacity remains INSIGNIFICANT and is a wastage of time and scarce resources better spent elsewhere by the EU. D.

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

 

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

 

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.

2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.

3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.

4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.

5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

As to:

 

B. said;

 

1. As opposed to thermal or nuclear power stations that generates no pollutants in its manufacture? Duh? The difference here, being, that GSWB doesn't produce pollutants when in operation - unlike your alternatives, thermal and nuclear. So point one is blown out of the water

 

--------------------------------

 

 

Why? Manufacture and maintenance for these systems is ongoing through the life of the system, or do you think the systems maintain themselves or don't wear out? The mine tailings(discards) for the raw materials components for solar collector arrays that would be equal in area to the area of New Jersey would cover an area 10 x the size of the collectors' surface area for example. That would be roughly equivalent to the surface area of Utah. D.

 

B. said:

 

2. Refer to the previous point. That's a pretty silly justification.

 

Refer to B's rebuttal of 1. and then my rebuttal of the rebuttal. I won't remark on "silly" as in good conscience I expect B. believes he is correct. I KNOW though that he is wrong. D.

 

B. wrote;

 

3. Huge footprint - sure. The US thermal energy complex has a footprint that spans halfway around the globe via the atmosphere. Brazilian treefrogs choke on their mosquitos so that the US can have streetlamps burning at ungodly hours. The difference here, is that per kilowatt the GSWB footprint might be considerably larger - but its effect on the ecosystem stops at the fencepost. Go GSWB!!!

 

 

An assertion? Prove it. Have you done the thermal pollution calculations or the weather pattern modifications caused by solar thermal collector systems at the magnitude engineering scales at which those systems have to operate to replace 30% fossil fuel generated U.S. capacity? If you think you have deserts now....D.

 

B. wrote.

 

4. HUH???

Farmland. Once you put a windmill farm on it.

 

 

http://www.turf.uiuc.edu/recent/recent1998/misc/CALIFORNIA%20WINDMILL%20FARM3.JPG D.

 

B. wrote;

 

5. Compare healthcosts and ecological damage due to thermal/nuclear power generation. Add that cost to your electricity generation bill. Check you efficiency stats once more.

 

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://dieoff.org/page84.htm

 

 

Old but still quite VALID. D.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

 

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

 

B. wrote;

 

Hey - let's throw all our eggs in one basket and use carbon-based fuels for our electricity generation! Let's rely on oil till the last drop in another twenty years' time! When the oil is finished, we're stuffed - but who cares; it's another 20 years away! And you call GSWB psychotic?! At best, I think you've made yourself guilty of a horribly unfortunate choice of words.

 

I stand by "psychotic". I prefer my science dosed with reality. If you had read others of my post you would have learned that I am a champion of hydrogen fuel cells for mobility, fusion for electrolysis of seawater for the hydrogen. hydro-electric and geo-thermal where we can get it, and save the POL products for lubrication, plastics and jet fuel. D.

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

 

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

 

B. wrote;

 

Suggestion. After the above visitation, go visit any thermal power plant. Not only the plant itself, but the surrounds. Go and take air samples and precipitation acidity levels thousands of miles away downwind. THAT's your coal/oil-fired power station's footprint. Then go to the surrounding towns and test the locals for lung disease, etc. See the drop in agricultural output downwind as opposed to the same soil upwind. Also, keep in mind the crap coming out of those power stations after the input is burnt off.

 

Like where I worked?

 

SCE & G. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) - SCE&G is SCANA's principal subsidiary, a regulated utility that provides electric and natural gas service in central and southern South Carolina. SCE&G owns and operates the Virgil C. Summer nuclear power plant, a 885 MW PWR. D.

 

B. wrote.

 

Don't EVER call GSWB-type installations 'abortive contraptions' if the above is the alternative!

 

 

I have and will continue to do so for the reasons I've scattered in this and related posts. D.

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

 

 

B. wrote;

 

Electrolysis of seawater with power you get from where? What makes you think the production process in building a hydrogen fuel cell involves less poison? Last time I checked, that was a particularly filthy thing to manufacture!

 

 

Batteries are particularly nasty things to manufacture as are PZ and PV cells, stack scrubbers catalytic converters, and most CHEMICAL and ELECTRICAL industrial infrastructure products .There are poisons and heavy metal pollutants involved in every step of extraction of raw materials, manufacture of and maintenance of these systems and products. If you are an expert in mining; I suspect you know thess facts much better than I do.That argument environmentally cited against manufacturing ,distributing and maintaining fuel cells as part of an energy policy(platinum usage; for example) is a red herring issue when it comes to implementation. A more practical argument against fuel cells might be; can we find a common membrane material for hydrogen fuel cells that will allow a fuel-celled car to start at - 15 degrees centigrade?

 

Electrolysis power for extracting hydrogen comes from the electrical grid's generating capacity for electricity as it exists now. and as we modify it in the future(fusion, hydro, geo-thermal, with niche solar and wind generation where feasible.). . I look at how we MOVE in vehicles when I discuss hydrogen fuel cells. I don't regard it as a source of PRIMARY electrical generation. This was misunderstood? If so, I apologize for beiing unclear. D.

 

 

Originally Posted by damocles

 

 

Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

 

B. wrote philosophy;

 

------------------------------------------

The power of the individual will eventually most likely be how wisely he applies his mind to survive on this planet whilst keeping the rest of the planet in mind. Using resources in such a selfish way as if there's no tomorrow will ultimately lead to humankind's eventual end. Shooting down or retarding GSWB development because you've got a huge investment in carbon energy, and damn the rest, is no way for a government to behave.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

I wrote economics. Americans pay for their energy like everyone else on this planet. TANSTAFL.

 

As for governments?

 

ITER is a bolloxed enterprise. Squandering TIME we don't have as our extractable POL reserves run out is no way for governments to behave.

 

http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_chinaview_011204.pdf

 

GSWB is incapable of meeting the CURRENT energy needs of humanity(not enough planetary surface square meterage per kilowatts required. When you think of arguing about the future of humanity, consider this; a typical Category Three hurricane like Katrina is actually an atmospheric heat engine that is about 3% efficient. It, in a day, has mechanical energy(winds) that roughly equates to more than 350 billion kilowatt hours or roughly half of what the United States uses in a year. What I want to do is get a crack at that kind of electrical generation capacity.(Very difficult to do, heat pollution!) That capability alone would make ALL of humanity quite rich, but it depends on DENSER; i. e. CONCENTRATED energy production capacity(Kilowattage per square meter area used.) than what we have now.

 

GSWB on the other hand forces us to choose to produce far less electricity per person because of its low DENSITY per square meter used.. There isn't enough square meterage of land on Earth that we can dedicate to such an approach that allows any other conclusion to be reached; economically, environmentally, or physically. That is a return to the 19th Century standard of living for humanity or worse. Ask the people of the middle east or of New Orleans NOW what that is like. D.

[Tagred]

All very interesting facts and figures, beautifully crafted arguments against the need to have any alternative sources of energy. But the simple fact is that they will come to noaught when carbon based fuels will no longer be sufficient to choke the atmosphere of its biggest user. Carbon based fuels are finite. When they do become uneconomical what would the proponents of it recommend as alternatives?

 

I think there is still some near sightedness going on. Of course it would be nice if we could increase our use of hydrocarbons tenfold say, especially in the developing countries, help them go through the development process we've all blundered our way through and never worry about where energy is coming from, but it remains that new energy must be sought from somewhere.

 

There are some good arguments here about how much damage a wind farm would be to ecologies, and how much toxic chemicals and resources used in their manufacture. The simple truth is that it is a fraction of the resources used to design, develop, build and maintain any hydrocarbon power generator.

 

The near sightedness I think comes in because people are unwilling to see that these technologies move forward. Wind turbines are more efficient now than they were 10yrs ago, and they continue to develop, it is the same with pv's, and they will continue to be more efficient. Surely people who work within the oil industry can acknowledge that you do not get a 100% efficient system by initial design. They above all are looking for cheaper and more effective ways of getting oil/coal from the ground. At best 40% efficient right now, 30yrs ago lucky if the managed to get 35% out of the rocks.

 

Nuclear fission stations are a cheap way of getting electricity sure, but then they are expensive to build and have 30yr lifespans by design. The waste has to be gotten rid off, either to the UK or some defined geological inert area, for cheap electricity fine, but for long tern use is no good.

 

Wind/wave and other alternative power generation is feasible, and will be economical and will provide whats needed. We will not need to cover the planet with wind farms, they are by default limited to certain areas. In the UK wind farms are also offshore, with some more huge farms proposed, so there will be no impact to ecologies, indeed their footprints will enhance oceanic environments.

 

I can understand why people dont like the idea of alternative fuels, we are used to guzzling 5miles /gallon, wasting fuel because we can, we dont care what happens to other nations because we are concerned about our pleasant energy rich homes. But, in the near future, alternatives must be sought and developed whether we like it or not.

[damocles]

All very interesting facts and figures, beautifully crafted arguments against the need to have any alternative sources of energy. But the simple fact is that they will come to noaught when carbon based fuels will no longer be sufficient to choke the atmosphere of its biggest user. Carbon based fuels are finite. When they do become uneconomical what would the proponents of it recommend as alternatives?

 

By Tagred

 

 

Was I unclear?

 

GSWB cannot supply one for one replacement NOW for the energy we currently produce in the United States.

 

Nor can it do so for the EU.

 

Japan? Forget it.

 

There is not enough usable surface area on the Earth or easily extractable resources to build and maintain for the mounting of a GSWB scheme to work to present day generating scales.

 

So what are the alternatives to GSWB and our dwindling extractable POL stocks?

 

I wrote about them; nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles, geothermal, and hydro-electric power. With wind and solar power in those niches where they are effective contributors.

 

Biomass I rejected. It is a hydrocarbon poison worse than oil.

 

Now, I know you read this in the above post, when I shot holes in the GSWB pipedream? If you didn't read this, where was I unclear?

[erich]

Dear Uncle Al,

Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.

All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

 

Dear Damocles:

At least you seem to take account of this. Although I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity.

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight