Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

Let me preface this: I know that this has been suggested before, and that it's not exactly a new concept. Certainly it would require dramatic changes in the way our society is organized, and a lot of people would be unhappy with the requisite changes, but I think that in the long run it would prove to be a source of energy which is clean, inexhaustible, and rather pleasing for those of us with the ability to feel sympathy for other human beings.

Now, it wouldn't power all of the U.S., and while simple, it is not easy to implement. Nevertheless:

Step 1: Unearth Ayn Rand's coffin.
Step 2: Link it to as large a turbine as is feasible given current standards of material manufacturing and engineering.
Step 3: Reform U.S. law and social norms to fit with the common model of social democracy, including but not limited to a universal guarantee of human rights, including the right of all humans to the basic necessities of life, such as clean water, healthful food, medical care, housing, &c., as well as strict limitations on predatory business practices.
Step 4: Unlimited Power

I know it's not the most conventional of clean-energy proposals, but please give it a little bit of consideration.

--

On a more serious note, Leo has presented one of the better points: We should focus first on removing the worst offenders rather than finding an ideal solution. Coal is absolutely terrible for the environment, both in terms of power production and extraction methods. The main issue with eliminating it is something I'm unfortunately well aware of, living in a coal state: there's massive support for the industry, not just in the lobbies, but on the popular level (due to the jobs it creates). It's also, to my recollection, the fossil fuel which will take the longest to run out; IIRC the current estimate puts it at around 250 years, as opposed to a handful of decades for oil and less than a century for natural gas.

[mainiac]

The main issue with eliminating it is something I'm unfortunately well aware of, living in a coal state: there's massive support for the industry, not just in the lobbies, but on the popular level (due to the jobs it creates).

Of course if that was the only problem congress could easily fix that with minimal effort.  Wyoming produces 40% of our coal and while the state has a low unemployment rate, it's not exactly known as a massive center of employment.  Even if we gave every person in Wyoming $20k a year as a "please don't bitch" subsidy we'd still only be talking about 10 billion dollars a year in pork money, decent money but small beans compared to the vast quantities involved with energy markets.  Of course we could be a lot more efficient about it by not just targeting the entire state.

[10ebbor10]

I'm not getting those numbers to reconcile.  When I do nuclear with optimistic assumptions for "median" (4 year construction, middle costs equally distributed over 4 years) I still get a present value cost per Mwh of 70.  And when I do solar with pessimistic assumptions (1 year construction before output, maximum price) I get a present value cost per Mwh of 235.  If I do solar with optimistic assumptions (minimum price, 3 month construction) I get 122.

The numbers, IIRC, are based on historical averages up to 2012. Solar power price probably has dropped in recent years. Anyway, the largest problem with solar power is it's abominable capacity factor. Decent solar (or other renewable) power generation will require far more storage than any other powersource.

At the same time, solar power(and other renewables), due to it's unstable production, makes Hydrostorage less and less profitable. After all, you need a massive generation capacity to meet with demand, but it's not consistently used.

[Flying Dice]

The main issue with eliminating it is something I'm unfortunately well aware of, living in a coal state: there's massive support for the industry, not just in the lobbies, but on the popular level (due to the jobs it creates).

Of course if that was the only problem congress could easily fix that with minimal effort.  Wyoming produces 40% of our coal and while the state has a low unemployment rate, it's not exactly known as a massive center of employment.  Even if we gave every person in Wyoming $20k a year as a "please don't bitch" subsidy we'd still only be talking about 10 billion dollars a year in pork money, decent money but small beans compared to the vast quantities involved with energy markets.  Of course we could be a lot more efficient about it by not just targeting the entire state.

Naturally, but there's a world of difference between things Congress could potentially do and things that Congress will actually do in a vision of the near future that isn't hopelessly optimistic. Again, too, the coal workers are the least significant part of the apparatus devoted to keeping the coal industry alive. They just so happen to be pushing in the same direction as coal interest groups, which makes decisions very easy for certain senators and representatives.

[Descan]

I'm a fair fan of solar towers, myself. At least for large power-grids. >_>

Plus, molten salts!

Nuclear and molten-salt towers as baseline, various renewables depending on what your region provides as the delicious upper crust. Hydro, wave, wind, solar, geothermal, the souls of the damned, etc.

[mainiac]

The numbers, IIRC, are based on historical averages up to 2012. Solar power price probably has dropped in recent years. Anyway, the largest problem with solar power is it's abominable capacity factor. Decent solar (or other renewable) power generation will require far more storage than any other powersource.

That's only true if it's a big enough share of the energy portfolio to start displacing baseload capacity.  We'd need to get it up to around 30% of total capacity or so before we'd even need to start worrying about storing energy.

[DJ]

Firewood / charcoal. If you keep the biomass of your tree farm a constant, net emissions are zero.

[sneakey pete]

Firewood / charcoal. If you keep the biomass of your tree farm a constant, net emissions are zero.

You do however have the issue of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and other nasties being released. When considering energy you can't just look at Co2 alone as the trend has become in the last few decades.

[DJ]

Nitrogen gets bound back into the ground by clovers and legumes, which can be composted and used to fertilize the tree farms. You'd deplete the soil otherwise anyway.

[sneakey pete]

You're thinking of a different Nitrogen Oxide

[BurnedToast]

Firewood / charcoal. If you keep the biomass of your tree farm a constant, net emissions are zero.

I doubt you're serious, but I did the math anyway because who needs sleep?

We'd have to to clearcut ~20% of the total forested land in the US per year.... just to supply 10% of our electricity usage (and electricity is only ~40% of total energy usage).

So obviously that's not going to get us very far, even if we replant the trees.

[DJ]

It's not going to satisfy the bulk of the energy needs, sure, but it can make a significant contribution. Also, if you're converting it to electricity, you're doing it wrong because every time you convert energy you sustain losses. Use it directly for heating buildings or transportation (with a steam engine).

[Sheb]

The issue is that it's really hard to keep the biomass constant. If you cut down a tree today, the replacement tree is going to take 10 or 20 years to grow. During that time, total biomass is down.

[DJ]

It hasn't really been an issue for logging companies. A forest grows a certain amount of biomass per year, and they just harvest that amount yearly to keep the forest where it's at. Sure, you're not going to have any old trees like this because they're a lot less efficient, but we're talking tree farms rather than national parks.

[Sheb]

You'll need ungodly amount of land still.