The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Energy] In the end, we'll still use liquified dinosaur carcasses for something
Posts
I actually don't think you understand the basic idea of living on a finite planet with finite resources. Oil, coal, and gas will run out some day. Hell, warmer global temperatures are already causing extreme weather and droughts like last summer's. Don't you understand how that impacts agriculture? Don't you understand how that impacts fresh water supply?
As I said, you can disbelieve it all you want, so that you can cheer-lead a wasteful, childish lifestyle, but that doesn't change reality. I'm not even saying we need to all return to some kind of subsistence farming lifestyle, I'm just proposing that we stop making and using stupid, wasteful junk: http://listverse.com/2009/01/09/top-10-worst-products-ever/
Also, don't you think reducing our consumption might buy us more time to develop solutions to our energy and climate change issues?
You won't be able to science yourself out of this problem. Science is not a panacea. In the future we'll have to use less because we'll have less to work with, unless science gives us the ability to create Star Trek style replicators to magic up whatever we need, from absolutely nothing.
Let's assume that with new technologies you could only produce X amount of energy to secure Y amount of resources that humans depend on. Don't you think it would be a good idea to bring consumption in line with Y?
Like I said earlier, climate change will cause is to take a good long look at ourselves. It'll be "fun."
Between newly accessible oil in shale and sand deposits, newly accessible deposits in the arctic, a pretty serious push by the Japanese to develop methane hydrate in the next 10-15 years, we have a whole lot left we can exploit. Like, probably more than we have used, by a whole lot. Orders of magnitude even.
We're totally going to destroy the climate first.
Also, that link is ridiculous. As in, I am not going to ridicule you for linking it. My options are a little limited, so I will use the strongest possible terms. You are a silly goose.
I've numbered your points above for ease of reference.
1) The first thing to understand is that ALL resources from from one of two industries, mining and agriculture. Currently, we mine our oil, coal, and gas. And I agree with you that at some point in the future, there won't be an economically viable sources of oil, coal, or gas to be mined. I diagree that there won't be sources of oil, coal, or gas. We can make oil/gas from crops, and waste products from agriculture can be used to fire power plants in the future.
2) The global climate is always changing. It's not static. Yes, we're on a trend of increasing temperatures, but we're still below the world average from the time of the rennisance.
If we understood how climate change impacts agriculture and water supplies, we can plan for these.
I think that in the future, we will be better prepared to deal with changing climates as science will equip us with the tools we need.
3) I agree with most of the products as being very wasteful, but not all. For example, the microwave isn't a wasteful kitchen utensil. People don't buy a microwave, use it once, and toss it in the trash. The author should have targeted microwaveable dinners, with all of their packaging instead.
And his number 1 item? Bottled water. I fully agree that in areas with a healthy clean tap water supply, they are wasteful. Find me some healthy clean tap water after a natural disaster like a hurricane, or when traveling internationally to countries like India.
I would rank sodas much higher than bottled water, as they have the same packaging issues while also mixing in severe health problems.
4) If science won't let us solve our issues, what will? Magic? Wishful thinking?
So you don't think our over-consumption ties in with our destruction of the climate? You don't think a consumer economy and its endless demand for resources ties in with climate change? I don't think I'm the silly goose here.
Also, I didn't look at the link very closely, it was just an example of the wasteful crap we make and buy. Bottled water isn't wasteful and stupid? Disposable razors aren't stupid and wasteful?
I can only assume like SFK you just want to plug your ears and bury your head in the sand until big bad climate change goes away. Let me know when you get over the whole population growth and growth-based economy vs. finite planet and fragile climate issue. I'm sure you'll just post more "I just don't believe it! My kids will be fine!" nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VOMWzjrRiBg
Again, if you didn't read my reply to SFK as "IF WE DON'T WANT TO DESTROY THE CLIMATE we'll have to use less in the future" then you're the goose here.
Energy production is a obvious use. It could also be used to get all the junk out of orbit. Or to move a spacecraft (wich would need no fuel or engine, greatly reducing its mass). Or to move asteroids, maybe even to Earth for resource gathering. Or for communication. Or for weather manipulation. Or for fighting forest fires by creating firebreaks. Or as a weapon.
If all the junk we put into orbit so far would have been those little devices we wouldn't be concerned about energy need. But we would be concerned about who is in control.
Actually this idea is so practicable that sooner or later some military will realize its power and build such a system. Its not cheap but at the same time its not really that expensive. Its much cheaper than an SDI program. Its also much cheaper than covering huge areas with anti-ICBM-missiles. And its more precise. And it can be used in a myriad of other tasks.
Of course... if any nation would begin building such a system there would be problems... Americans wouldn't like the Russians to put something like this above their heads and vice versa. It could knock out satelitte capability globally with ease and at the same time thwart every ICBM attack, nullifiying any threat based scenario. Same for planes. Ships. Any kind of ground force. Once established it would be very hard to get rid of. You can't simply build another system without exposing yourself during construction. Submarines would still offer a degree of deterrence, i guess.
The problem is the more powerful technology becomes, the more dangerous it gets. But thats of course another issue.
You might end up with a Dyson Sphere at some point in the far, far future maybe.
If you're a 'firm believer in science' (science is the method; technology is the stuff in your 4 door garage), you'll already know that we can't reasonably hope to tech our way out of the current problems. Well, unless you happen to know of plans to start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than we're putting it in?
I love when people break-out the apocalypse scenario strawman argument. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
edit: Peak OIL! You link a fucking youTube video about peak god damned oil?! really, that's what that was? bloody hell.
There are currently 12 permits for new reactors either issued or under review.
Yeah, there's burning the plant by-products, but unless you can easily make biodiesel you don't have the energy density requires to be useful
well, technically...
There is also solar thermal, and the stuff it requires isn't particularly hard to come by.
On a global scale. It might have some effect on a more local level. Like, if you were going to go the draft tower route, you might be able to increase local sea breezes and stuff, which mean you also throw up a some wind turbine(or am pretending this is somehow free energy?) and bring over a bit more precipitation.
I mean, there has been talk about building some of those very large. Like, a mile radius and other crazy things. Build a lot of them in a given area, and you can affect the local weather. It happens with cities and such.
Local weather =/= global or even regional climate.
Given the local weather for where they want to build there is typically, well... middle of a damned desert, you got to be a special kinda green, and smoking no small amount of green, to really give more than a couple shits.
edit: I was also mostly thinking of the liquid salt/brine closed loop heat exchanger, with an open loop turbine sort of solar thermal. Or whatever. Those tend to involve things like cooling towers and stuff, which have their own problems, but you've got to create a heat differential somehow. Don't think we are typically talking about places with a useful aquifer you can dump heat into either.
They simply redirect energy that would otherwise... be absorbed by the ground anyway
In the sense that they were formed by fusion maybe. Thermal is better (though in the long run running the turbine may cause problems) but PV requires depletable resources to manufacture the panels
sure. but we are talking about truly massive areas of land and as long as we are using sane transport technologies(ultra high voltage dc, sorry Tesla) the plants can be very far from farmlands or other things we care all that much about. There's lots and lots of Outback, Sahara, Gobi or whatever to go around.
"The earth's not a closed system; it's powered by the sun. So fuck the damn creationists. Doomsday, get my gun."
Why did you think they were lame? We're a long way off from hydrids dominating the market. Hydrids are a transitional development not the endgame. The sooner vehicles run on alternate fuels the better off we'll all be and it is going to take decades to accomplish that since it isn't that high a priority to America, even with Obama in office.
Does anyone know how the safety of them compares to gasoline cars? Isnt hydrogen way more dangerous? Also in what form is the hydrogen stored, liquid or gas?
Not to mention all the refuelling stations. Maybe i dont know what im talking about but i just have this instinct that hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline.
In what way? Are you just referring to regular maintenance / end of turbine life replacement here?
hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas or as a liquid bound to carbon molecules. It is more dangerous than gasoline, but 'way more dangerous' is a bit of a stretch. Hydrogen doesn't burn all that hot, and really containment of compressed gasses isn't that huge a deal.
Frankly, fuelcells are pretty much shit anyway, and we will have higher energy density batteries any year now. Or methane fuel cells which combine a stable liquid high density fuel with all the fuel cell magic. *shrug*
He is talking about waste heat, if he has half a brain.
Right. Technically, combustion based stuff also includes internal combustion and expansion turbines, which are pressure based(and aren't used in anything all that large). Those have heat waste as well, but it doesn't end up getting dumped into a local river (which is pretty much the case with coal, gas, solar or nuclear powered steam turbines).
It turns out that hydrogen is kind of a pain in the ass. It's probably the most difficult substance to contain properly, since it's so small. It also does not have a very high energy density, even in liquid form. These (and other) problems are not insurmountable, but probably way more of a hassle than a whole slew of alternatives. It would be nice to be able to use a fuel that only results in water vapor emissions, but so far it has not proven to be practical at all.
Well, they are very practical in space, where anything failing will kill you, and having a source of potable pure water is pretty useful. Like, they've been using fuel cells on the shuttle and on space stations for a over a decade(I think, certainly a while).
Hydrocarbon fuel cells, like methane fuel cells, solve a lot of the problems with storage, but are a bit more complicated, currently tend to foul, and there's those pesky carbon atoms.
edit: Oh! and we are talking about hydrogen. So it is time for the little the typical public awareness message.:
hydrogen.no-reply@energy-thread "Currently, hydrogen is created by processing natural gas, which results in the release of co2. Even under ideal situations, catalyzed electrosys, it will always take more energy to create hydrogen from its most plentiful source, water, than the hydrogen bears. Basically, this means that under no circumstances should hydrogen be thought of as an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy storage method, basically the same as a battery, and for the reason mentioned above it is not a very effective or practical method.
This message has been automatically generated. Replies to this message will not be read. To unsubscribe from this message click the following link http://yay.let-us-do-this-again.org/energy-thread?hydrogen%20is%20pretty%20pointless-unsubscribe"
Can we make fun of carbon sequestration now? Let's just sweep all our pollution under the rug; Deep Core Dumping. LOL!
You'd think this would be obvious to people, but a surpising number of people still believe there is some magic catalyst that will make electrolysis free.