The future is (still) coming! 19

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 8:44 am
   24 May 2006

   Uh oh, they should have ditched the word nuclear"Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible."
   They should have called it something like "The Renewable Hyrdrogen Combo Energy System".
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

2. 

   foodnotoil Posted 11:47 am
   24 May 2006

   experimental...so, how do they plan on holding a gas that is 100 million degrees Celsius, a temperature that is several times hotter than the center of the Sun?
   With a doughnut-shaped magnetic field? Is this for real? Can magnetic fiels actually hold temperatures that hot?
   This troubles me greatly; and to throw on top of it all, it is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
   ...Experimental? Sounds safe, doesn't it? lol... we spent tax dollars on this???

   Permalink

3. 

   foodnotoil Posted 11:51 am
   24 May 2006

   funnyIn fact, ...it's almost as if they intentionally put the word experimental in it just to get people riled up.
   Indeed, why didn't they call it the "Renewable Hydrogen Combo Energy System?"

   Permalink

4. 

   elmerz Posted 4:36 am
   25 May 2006

   tokamak reactorThe concept to contain the high-energy plasma is the tokamak reactor design.  I think part of the idea with the ITER is to figure out how to make this work commercially.  It has been shown to work conceptually.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
   I think the saddest thing is that there is environmentalist opposition to this.  If anything, we need more forward looking research such as this.  Renewables like wind and solar will never provide a complete energy solution.

   Permalink

5. 

   David Roberts Posted 5:07 am
   25 May 2006

   Oh?Renewables like wind and solar will never provide a complete energy solution.
   Says who?
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

6. 

   sunflower Posted 6:04 am
   25 May 2006

   critical pathFusion is not so much an environmental concern.  Containment and power extraction of fusion is too expensive, much more expensive than the containment of fission.  The power of humanity will come from energy less expensive than coal, a critical path.

   Permalink

7. 

   David Roberts Posted 7:23 am
   25 May 2006

   The pointThe objection of environmentalists to fusion doesn't have to do with the process itself but with the opportunity costs: A lot of guaranteed good could be done with $5+ billion dollars.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 8:41 am
   25 May 2006

   Fusion is a gambleSure, I'd take that money and buy up biological hotspots, but if it succeeds it has the potential to pay for itself a million fold. That is why we don't give up on it. The potential for inexpensive power is staggering and could make all the difference in what our future will look like. We sure would not need to turn our remaining intact ecosystems into biofuel monocrops.
   Wind and solar are also gambles. They have a higher probability of coming to fruition but also have less potential for cost effectiveness.
   They too are dependent on innovation to deal with the fact that they generate power intermittently. It wouldn't be wise to put all of our eggs in one (or even two baskets).
   Do you have any convincing studies detailing how wind and solar could cost effectively meet all of our our needs into the future? If so, lets get to dissiminating it and build a debate to defend it. Count me in to help. I'll put up a webpage for it.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

9. 

   bookerly Posted 8:41 am
   25 May 2006

   Think of it as research
   
      Why not try to build a fusion reactor?  A fair number of creditable scientists think it is possible.  If it works, great, if it doesn't, we learn a lot from it (think of it as research).
      As to the cost, compared to the money being spent on the war in Iraq, it's chicken feed.  We should not (in my opinion) object to spending money on things like research.  
      We have more than enough to do all the good we want, we merely lack the desire to do good! (okay, not the "we" here (smile)).
      Here is a Chinese viewpoint.
   http://english.people.com.cn//200605/25/eng20060525_268525.html
   and
   http://english.people.com.cn/200602/06/eng20060206_240496.html
   patrick

   Permalink

10. 

    sunflower Posted 8:48 am
    25 May 2006

    Tower of BabelI agree.  A few years back I read the arguments for fusion participation.  The  US did not see the goal of energy as commensurate with the costs and the risks.  
    Participation was for the process and the politics, kind of like the construction of the Tower of Babel.

    Permalink

11. 

    sunflower Posted 9:03 am
    25 May 2006

    The Crossfire on the Front LinesI meant I agree w/ David, the money could be better invested in fusion research from the sun.
    As for coal verses solar cost and performance... the science is there.  Scientists are not permitted to talk to the press.  You would need to dig deep in conference DVDs for their opinions and goals to use new technology economics for the displacement of coal.  
    The resistance to competing energy science is as intense as the resistance to global warming science.  

    Permalink

12. 

    elmerz Posted 9:38 am
    25 May 2006

    me again.>Says who?
    Dave, from what I've read, is you can't have a grid that is 100% solar/wind.  Something to do with the fact that it's not always sunny and windy (maybe I'm wrong...I'd swear I read that on many sites that have been linked from here).  That's not a diss against those technologies since I am for those, as well.
    To me, it seems that ultimately we will need a new platform to form the backbone of energy production, in the way coal plants have been.
    Also, I don't think squabling over that $5 billion in forward-thinking research money is where we should be at (and often are!), but rather getting those vastly larger dollars that are being wasted on oil research/exploration redirected to all of these sorts of research.  In fact, we wouldn't be in this situation re: global warming, if as a culture, we weren't so averse to forward-thinking research money!

    Permalink

13. 

    sunflower Posted 10:05 am
    25 May 2006

    In the Image of Nuclear.Looking for one type of energy in the image of coal or nuclear is not progressive problem solving.  The variables and time frames are quite complex.  
    But consider one isolated element, there is something like 30 times the power in transportation compared to power plants.  It has been suggested by researchers that electric transportation vehicles can supply the grid (and be supplied by the grid) when not in use for transportation.  
    CENTRAL POWER PLANTS ARE DINOSAURS.

    Permalink

14. 

    Rob Posted 6:00 pm
    25 May 2006

    biodiversivistbiodiversivist, what do you propose- as a real world, not fantasia, solution? Curious....

    Permalink

15. 

    amazingdrx Posted 9:03 pm
    25 May 2006

    Fusion?Renewables need only efficient storage to take over as the main power source then?  Cost is no longer a problem, or availability, or the size of renewable energy sources.
    Can we at least agree on that?
    Well fusion research uses superconducting magnetic fields.  So do superconducting energy storage rings that will efficiently store the amounts of energy necessary for a 100% renewable powered grid.
    Why isn't this offshoot of particle accelerator and fusion research employed to solve the energy/global climate change problems?
    And as we have mentioned, oh maybe 100 times here, distributed storage in the form of batteries in electric cars and batteries in homes and businesses would also solve the storage problem.
    Despite what even the AWEA says, storage solutions like this will make a 100% renewable energy future possible.  All that's needed is a breakup of the monopoly control of capital to get going on this future.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

16. 

    amazingdrx Posted 9:33 pm
    25 May 2006

    Billions and billionsHas anyone noticed how seldom that old talking point about how billions upon billions of wind machines and solar panels covering an area as big as the universe would be needed to provide enough renewable energy?
    That's progress.  You lose Rove and Cheney.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

17. 

    sunflower Posted 10:22 pm
    25 May 2006

    Nanoparticle CapacitorsNanoparticle capacitors may displace batteries for electrical storage.  They are small, fast to charge, very efficient, and almost immortal.

    Permalink

18. 

    sunflower Posted 11:15 pm
    25 May 2006

    Deserts Expanding With Jet Stream ShiftSatellite measurements made from 1979 to 2005 show that the atmosphere in the subtropical regions both north and south of the equator is heating up. As the atmosphere warms, it bulges out at the altitudes where the northern and southern jet streams slip past like swift and massive rivers of air. That bulging has pushed both jet streams about 70 miles closer to the Earth's poles.
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/25/D8HR4K6G0.html

    Permalink

19. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 11:13 am
    28 May 2006

    An updatehttp://www.physorg.com/news67442282.html
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink