Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[m4v]

That's a terrible idea. As energy consumtion increases so does technology allowing for better energy sources. Those panels would become obsolete quite quickly and would still require maintenance. The cost would be great and so would be the energy loss during transfer.

Solar panels don't need maintenance. Still is a terrible idea but for different reasons, ie, the Moon isn't geostationary, and at that distance the microwave antennas needed would be just too big.

What Japan proposed is geostationary solar collectors. The idea is actually sound, but the biggest hurdle is probably the microwave interference with all the satellites below in LEO.

Edited June 21, 2014 by m4v

[peadar1987]

So what? If you can't reach it efficiently, it's good as grassfield to a lion.

Geothermal is good in few places on Earth and that's it. It can not solve energy problems of 99% of people on the planet.

Although ground source heat pumps for space heating are absolutely brilliant for reducing energy demand.

Geothermal is actually more viable than a lot of people think. You don't need lava or hot springs, and usable resources are actually quite widespread, although the cost does go up with diminishing resource quality.

[Seret]

Although ground source heat pumps for space heating are absolutely brilliant for reducing energy demand.

A significant portion of a domestic GSHPs energy is solar though, even for boreholes. For slinkies it's 100%. Still, I'd install one tomorrow if they were more affordable. Even ASHPs are still too expensive compared to a gas boiler, and unless the grid decarbonises quite a bit more the carbon difference between them isn't that great.

You don't need lava or hot springs

You do need the right kind of geology though. You're right that it's more widespread than people think (few Britons would think it was used here, for example) but it's a limited resource. Even when you do have the right kind of rocks there's a limit to the rate you can extract heat if you want the resource to be sustainable. Sadly most actual geothermal power plants extract at well above that rate. It's difficult to get a power company to care that they'll go out of business in 100 years when there's the offer of easily boosted profits today.

[The Jedi Master]

Powerful solar panels that can work through cloud cover because we will never run out of sun and it's everywhere.

[HavelockVetinari]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but the Sahara Solar Breeder Project, google it or click the link http://www.ssb-foundation.com/ has the potential to provide half the worlds energy needs by building masses of solar panels / solar furnaces in places where there is lots of the resources needed for solar power. Sand to make the PhotoVoltaic PV panels and sun. Sahara, Mohave, Gobi Australian deserts are all planned. Once the project is started research facilities would be built and some of the power would go to run seawater desalination plants and this water would be used for irrigation and reforestation of the deserts. As it grows more solar fields, manufacturing facilities, more desalination plants would be built and more fields planted. So essentially the initial project would "breed" more. Obviously this would bring many thousands of jobs in manufacture, farming, building the infrastructure and improve the economies and well being of the countries involved.

This is not some pie in the sky what if plan it's a serious proposition started by the Universities of Tokyo and Algiers. This was suppose to start a few years ago but the Arab spring happened and things got a bit tense but it looks like it's starting to progress again. It's all based on current technology, they're not waiting for some future tech like nuclear fusion "which always seems to be 30 years away" the tech for the Cryogenic transmission system (to reduce power loss for long distance transmission) is already in existence it's just expensive, but with use and mas production the price will come down.

I have worked for the oil and gas industry for over 20 years and I can see this is a damn good idea. Humankind has to move away from fossil fuels and potentially lethal alternatives like Nuclear in it's current form. I realise we can't all stop using fossil fuels or nuclear at the moment that's just not feasible but we can certainly start moving towards a sustainable future. I also don't think that solar alone is the answer, wind, wave, tidal, hydrothermal, Hydroelectric and safer forms of nuclear power such as Thorium based power plants all have their place. In the mean time we need to improve the efficiency of existing engine technology, work on battery technology and start moving away from huge gas guzzling, cars, trucks, ships and planes. VW already have a production car that can do 300 mpg, but it's banned from being marketed or even demonstrated in the US because then jo public in the USA might realise that the car / oil companies are lying to them and it is possible to get more than the supposed limit "50mpg" out of an internal combustion engine. It's not going to stop your redneck petrol head who wants a 600 HP fire breathing monster but the average person who is concerned about rising gas prices and putting food on the table will take note. The sun provides all the energy we will ever need, free!, We need to start using it.

[hoppeltje]

wel instead of geothermal.

why dont we try Thorium, you can never get a meltdown becouse it never gets so hot.

you cant make any nuclear weapons of it cus it does not create a chain reaction.

and its abundand on our planet instead of Uranium

[theend3r]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but the Sahara Solar Breeder Project, google it or click the link http://www.ssb-foundation.com/ has the potential to provide half the worlds energy needs by building masses of solar panels / solar furnaces in places where there is lots of the resources needed for solar power. Sand to make the PhotoVoltaic PV panels and sun. Sahara, Mohave, Gobi Australian deserts are all planned. Once the project is started research facilities would be built and some of the power would go to run seawater desalination plants and this water would be used for irrigation and reforestation of the deserts. As it grows more solar fields, manufacturing facilities, more desalination plants would be built and more fields planted. So essentially the initial project would "breed" more. Obviously this would bring many thousands of jobs in manufacture, farming, building the infrastructure and improve the economies and well being of the countries involved.

This is not some pie in the sky what if plan it's a serious proposition started by the Universities of Tokyo and Algiers. This was suppose to start a few years ago but the Arab spring happened and things got a bit tense but it looks like it's starting to progress again. It's all based on current technology, they're not waiting for some future tech like nuclear fusion "which always seems to be 30 years away" the tech for the Cryogenic transmission system (to reduce power loss for long distance transmission) is already in existence it's just expensive, but with use and mas production the price will come down.

I have worked for the oil and gas industry for over 20 years and I can see this is a damn good idea. Humankind has to move away from fossil fuels and potentially lethal alternatives like Nuclear in it's current form. I realise we can't all stop using fossil fuels or nuclear at the moment that's just not feasible but we can certainly start moving towards a sustainable future. I also don't think that solar alone is the answer, wind, wave, tidal, hydrothermal, Hydroelectric and safer forms of nuclear power such as Thorium based power plants all have their place. In the mean time we need to improve the efficiency of existing engine technology, work on battery technology and start moving away from huge gas guzzling, cars, trucks, ships and planes. VW already have a production car that can do 300 mpg, but it's banned from being marketed or even demonstrated in the US because then jo public in the USA might realise that the car / oil companies are lying to them and it is possible to get more than the supposed limit "50mpg" out of an internal combustion engine. It's not going to stop your redneck petrol head who wants a 600 HP fire breathing monster but the average person who is concerned about rising gas prices and putting food on the table will take note. The sun provides all the energy we will ever need, free!, We need to start using it.

Sahara => dust storms => solar panels go boom = problem. They could be in some sort of glass containers I guess, but that'd be incredibly expensive.

[Brotoro]

...VW already have a production car that can do 300 mpg, but it's banned from being marketed or even demonstrated in the US because then jo public in the USA might realise that the car / oil companies are lying to them and it is possible to get more than the supposed limit "50mpg" out of an internal combustion engine.

This sounds like nonsense.

[xcorps]

This sounds like nonsense.

I saw that car, the one with the 300mpg. It was parked next to the car that runs on water.

[HavelockVetinari]

Brotoro, see for yourself. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/50-mpg-cars-not-allowed-in-usa-2933366.html

I've seen this story a number of times from some reputable sources and whether it's completely true or not about the whole "vehicles that are more efficient than 50+ mpg banned in the US" is true or not the fact remains the VW XL1 was banned in the US for "Safety" reasons. Europe have higher crash test regulations than the US so that seems a little dubious. Oh I was inaccurate about one thing the XL1 doesn't do 300 mpg only 261 mpg. I for one would love to have a car capable of doing 261 mpg or even 100 mpg especially as we pay per litre what you folks in the US pay per gallon.

[HavelockVetinari]

Dust storms are not as common as all that especially around the coastal areas. I lived for years in a semi desert area in central Tanzania and we had some pretty big storms with lots of dust and the solar panels we used ran fine with out a hitch. I've also working in Mauritania and that's in the Sahara, everything was covered in dust, constantly and there were solar panels all over the place there. Yes the electronics will have to be protected from the dust but it's easy enough to do and the panels will have to be well anchored and protected but that just requires a bit of engineering. Yes panels will get damaged and need repairing but there are many people there who need a job. It might well be expensive but fixing a devastated planet will be a lot more expensive.

[HavelockVetinari]

xcorps it's not some fantasy crackpot invention by some dude from California in his garage. It's down to clever German engineering and physics. It works it drives, it's a production car built by Volkswagen. Do you think that one of the biggest car companies on the planet would stake it's reputation on something that was a fraud? You can buy one but it's £100,000 or $170,000. They are not making many though.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-volkswagen-xl1-first-drive-review

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/volkswagen/xl1/84767/volkswagen-xl1-video-review

[Red Iron Crown]

The XL1 requires exotic carbon fiber construction to attain its low mass and efficiency, there's no way it can be brought down to common production car pricing without a revolution in manufacturing techniques.

There's no conspiracy to keep high mileage vehicles out of the US; there are plenty of them available but the fact is that US car buyers simply don't demand them as much as other world markets.

If you want a sanely priced vehicle with mileage similar to the XL1, get a motorcycle or scooter. I'm holding out for EVs to come down to the lower end of the market, tough to beat zero fuel consumed. For now I just drive a fuel efficient car that the oil companies haven't been able to keep down, it is reasonably priced and has room for my whole family.

[HavelockVetinari]

Hi red, yes it's built to be as light as possible with exotic materials but I also read a while back when I first head about about a VW XL1 that VW have also built the non Hybrid Diesel Jetta TDI Blue motion which does 85mpg and it has been banned in the US because it apparently doesn't meet US crash test standards. But as the article says the Fed refused to crash test it. Why would that be? I have read a lot about the technology used in the XL1 engine and while it's sophisticated it's not particularly revolutionary, It's all about injecting small amounts of water into the cylinder which turns to dry steam and increases compression radically this giving you far bigger bang for your buck. Many have surmised that putting a version of the XL1 engine in a regular car would give 100 + mpg. I for one am waiting for the price of a Tesla to come down and I'll buy one. Battery technology is improving all the time and the internal combustion engine will go the way of the steam locomotive.

[xcorps]

xcorps it's not some fantasy crackpot invention by some dude from California in his garage. It's down to clever German engineering and physics. It works it drives, it's a production car built by Volkswagen. Do you think that one of the biggest car companies on the planet would stake it's reputation on something that was a fraud? You can buy one but it's £100,000 or $170,000. They are not making many though.

That's not a production car, that's a toy for millionaires who like to brag about their low carbon footprint.

[Red Iron Crown]

I mean no offense Havelock, but that article reads like consiracy theorist nonsense. And the article that it cites as its "source" begins with a plea from the site operator for donations for an RV for his family to live in.

The feds have never refused to test a vehicle to my knowledge. I suspect that VW doesn't choose to import that particular model because their projections suggest it wouldn't sell well enough there. It is certainly possible to gray market import cars that don't meet crash standards, you could even import a wood framed Morgan.

[lajoswinkler]

Powerful solar panels that can work through cloud cover because we will never run out of sun and it's everywhere.

Rrrrright...

wel instead of geothermal.

why dont we try Thorium, you can never get a meltdown becouse it never gets so hot.

you cant make any nuclear weapons of it cus it does not create a chain reaction.

and its abundand on our planet instead of Uranium

Because it's too expensive, not tested enough and not commercially viable yet. Some of the stuff you've wrote there is not true. The reality for thorium is much more complex and no, it's not "because you can make bombs out of uranium".

Be sure to read all of this.

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html

[phoenix_ca]

I don't think ITER would be built if that was the case.

Ohhhh yes they would. A long time ago, the USA DoE made the very stupid decision to only pursue the tokamak design for fusion power generation. It was a massive blunder, and pretty much every scientist in the field said so, including proponents of the tokamak design. Other countries followed suit, and we get JET and ITER. In terms of progress toward adequate density and temperature for self-sustaining fusion, the tokamak has been soundly beaten by DPF and polywells, and they're aiming for a far more difficult fuel to get to fuse, p+b11. Tokamaks are using the easiest fuel to fuse, D+T, and they are still miles away.

I don't understand these people that say "yeah, fusion".

We don't have a working fusion reactor. Period.

We don't have a thorium fuelled reactor that could be used for power generation either. But like thorium fuel in fission, what's left with DPF and polywell fusion is largely engineering problems, not new and unproven science. They're both close enough to commercial viability that they're worth talking about.

[SargeRho]

The JT-60 would have produced more energy than it consumed if it was fueled with a 1:1 D-T mix, but they don't have the facilities to handle Tritium there, althought IIRC Q=1.25 isn't enough to run a reactor.

[AngelLestat]

We said a lot about wind, nuclear and PV. But that is not enoght to remove the 75% of fossil plants.

So a question remains.. What we do with them? We can not remplace all in few years.

Even if we could, what will do with all the fossil resources that we no longer need?

Our economics still depends on the use of those resources.

So maybe we can improve those fossil plants.

Today Thermal plants reach an efficiency of 37% to 48%; it can also reach to 60% with combined cycle plants as the Siemmens case.

http://www.controleng.com/single-article/siemens-gas-turbine-breaks-60-efficiency-barrier/42c56242c5.html

Or also in small scale as this german company claims:

http://www.lesa-maschinen.de/cms/index.php?page=systemvergleich&hl=en_EN

In all thermal power plants a key method to gain efficiency is to had hydrophobic surfaces to improve condensation.

A lot of adavances in that was made these last 5 years.

In the process, water is heated to 600C, after many cycles you extract "work" until you have low temperatures were is very hard to extract usefull "work", but you can use the remain energy as Co-generation.

This can help to provide Hot water to a town, or to desalinate sea water, chemical production, etc.

So the overall efficiency increase.

BUt we still have a problem, CO2.

We can adapt our thermal plants to capture the Co2, there are several ways in developtment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/construction-begins-on-new-carbon-capture-plant/

http://www.toshiba-smartcommunity.com/en/smart-grid/ccs/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/peterhead-carbon-capture-and-storage-project

We are in the test phase. There are so many differents way to achieve this, so it would not be easy to find the best.

But that it would be something good when the step to establish how much cost/effective it is.

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

So, yeah. Reactors. Being built to withstand aircraft smashing into them even better than the current design. I'll read the rest later, but I'd rather like a full citation (not just a link to the document). And if those safeties are removed to compete in the US market? Guess what, that's not a design problem, it's a policy problem. It's certainly possible to design a safer reactor; whether or not you do it is the problem.

As you said, New reactors does not come with that, you need to add it.

This is not news, you can add to any instalation a shield to counter an airplane or nuclear bomb, but how much increase the cost?

Who are the only nations which ask for this feature? France and Germany.

Germany is in shutdown phase of all their nuclear plants, and I guess that France is a little worry about their last study about safety and possible consequences.

MHD Generators.

I read a bit, But I dint have enoght time, can you explain what are their beneficts, how much time left to complete their develpment?

There's no conspiracy to keep high mileage vehicles out of the US; there are plenty of them available but the fact is that US car buyers simply don't demand them as much as other world markets.

Yes, this is true.

Oil companies can not stop progress or technology, the only that they can do is to buy some "scientist" as source of anti gobal warming propaganda. To seed doubt and confusion into the people. They gain time with that.

Ohhhh yes they would. A long time ago, the USA DoE made the very stupid decision to only pursue the tokamak design for fusion power generation. It was a massive blunder, and pretty much every scientist in the field said so, including proponents of the tokamak design. Other countries followed suit, and we get JET and ITER. In terms of progress toward adequate density and temperature for self-sustaining fusion, the tokamak has been soundly beaten by DPF and polywells, and they're aiming for a far more difficult fuel to get to fuse, p+b11. Tokamaks are using the easiest fuel to fuse, D+T, and they are still miles away.

You have an info source of that?

We don't have a thorium fuelled reactor that could be used for power generation either. But like thorium fuel in fission, what's left with DPF and polywell fusion is largely engineering problems, not new and unproven science. They're both close enough to commercial viability that they're worth talking about.

[phoenix_ca]

As you said, New reactors does not come with that, you need to add it.

This is not news, you can add to any instalation a shield to counter an airplane or nuclear bomb, but how much increase the cost?

Who are the only nations which ask for this feature? France and Germany.

Germany is in shutdown phase of all their nuclear plants, and I guess that France is a little worry about their last study about safety and possible consequences.

Great, you need to add safety systems to make something safe. How does this support your initial assertions that nuclear power is inherently unsafe, and that it is so unsafe that it's not even worth pursuing?

You have an info source of that?

[peadar1987]

We said a lot about wind, nuclear and PV. But that is not enoght to remove the 75% of fossil plants.

So a question remains.. What we do with them? We can not remplace all in few years.

Even if we could, what will do with all the fossil resources that we no longer need?

Our economics still depends on the use of those resources.

Well if we're to stop global warming, then we kind of have to just leave them in the ground.

So maybe we can improve those fossil plants.

Today Thermal plants reach an efficiency of 37% to 48%; it can also reach to 60% with combined cycle plants as the Siemmens case.

http://www.controleng.com/single-article/siemens-gas-turbine-breaks-60-efficiency-barrier/42c56242c5.html

CCGTs are great, really clever bits of kit, but they don't really work on Rankine Cycle plants like current coal and oil stations, because the exhaust temperature is too low. You need some huge pieces of equipment to actually recover that energy, because it's quite high-entropy, low-temperature stuff.

You really need a gas turbine as your topping cycle to get high enough temperatures to do anything useful. You can use coal gasification, but that's expensive.

In all thermal power plants a key method to gain efficiency is to had hydrophobic surfaces to improve condensation.

Unfortunately, this won't actually increase the efficiency of the cycle, it merely has the potential to reduce the cost of the heat exchangers by improving their efficiency.

In the process, water is heated to 600C, after many cycles you extract "work" until you have low temperatures were is very hard to extract usefull "work", but you can use the remain energy as Co-generation.

This can help to provide Hot water to a town, or to desalinate sea water, chemical production, etc.

So the overall efficiency increase.

Cogeneration is something that everyone should have been doing since the first power plants were built. Not doing it was an absolutely shocking oversight. However, recovering more heat from thermal power plants isn't as simple as just adding more cycles to the end of the process. Each cycle you need a larger and larger turbine as the density of the working fluid goes down, for diminishing energy returns. You can mitigate this a little by using different working fluids in the bottoming cycles, but there is a limit. The maximum efficiency you can really get with a bottoming cycle is about 20-25% unfortunately.

Edited June 22, 2014 by peadar1987

[The Jedi Master]

Rrrrright...

Error: No Argument Detected.

Hey, you give a sarcastic answer, I give one back.

[sal_vager]

Or you could settle this like gentlemen

Pistols at dawn!

[AngelLestat]

Great, you need to add safety systems to make something safe. How does this support your initial assertions that nuclear power is inherently unsafe, and that it is so unsafe that it's not even worth pursuing?

If you would give 2 videos of more than 1hour each as source, try at least to point the time where explain the thing that I ask you.

i dint watch the first, I watch the second fully. Is close to the min 18.

But that is not any prof of what you said.

Is just a guy trying to get funding to its research line. What do you expect him to say?

From all the money invested into fussion, you think that nobody would try to invest a little amount if it would had a real chance to win the fusion career against the other billions investments?

If such few money is needed to research this approach, why USA or any other country does not invest in it and multiply their chance to achieve fusion?

You can not have a good opinion just lessen one side speech.

I wish him luck, also I dont have any trouble being this is your favorite approach. But is not a prof that the ITER is a waste of money.

About the cost of safety in a nuclear reactor. I already give a lot of numbers that proff that Wind+storage can be in the same range than nuclear (without extra shield), so if your solution is make them expensive, I dont see the point.

And that shield and sabatoage measures (also not perfect), just help to sleep better. But even if you are able to stop an fighter airplane, it does not mean that you can stop a bunker busted missile.

Only one of this missiles and you put France on their knees. Of course I dont think that this would happen never. Nobody would risk to do this (today) for retaliation which may trigger.

But the fact that there are not safe, remains.

PD: in all this discussion I congratulate you for the great way to sell the CANDU reactors, I am not sure if even the salesman can do it better.

Well if we're to stop global warming, then we kind of have to just leave them in the ground.

That's not a real way of seeing things.

All fossils fuels had an increasing cost to day, just becouse they had a constant demand with a limit amount.

But if that demand decrease (more electric cars, less fossil plants, etc) but you still had the resources, then the cost decrease. Which make fossil plants more competitive than even were before.

Adding that is not cost efficient decommission a new or high quality fossil thermal plant. I would said that this approach can help a lot.

You are reducing the 90% of the CO2 with a investment lower than the needed to remplace them. So is part of the solution.

CCGTs are great, really clever bits of kit, but they don't really work on Rankine Cycle plants like current coal and oil stations, because the exhaust temperature is too low. You need some huge pieces of equipment to actually recover that energy, because it's quite high-entropy, low-temperature stuff.

You really need a gas turbine as your topping cycle to get high enough temperatures to do anything useful. You can use coal gasification, but that's expensive.

I dont understand abbreviations, you mean thermal plants with combined cycle?

I know that you can not upgrade most of the thermal plants to combined cycle. But you can almost upgrade all thermal plants (or a least the ones with would last more) to capture co2, or add them some cogeneration process (you dont need an turbine for this, just a heat exchanger)

Unfortunately, this won't actually increase the efficiency of the cycle, it merely has the potential to reduce the cost of the heat exchangers by improving their efficiency.

That is not complete true, heat exchangers does not have always the maximun work rate. Becouse try to get to those efficiencies would be cost inefficient with old technology, but you can improve the existing heat exchanger with some kind of cover or sprayer to make them hydrophobic. This would increase the plant efficiency (not much, but all counts).

Cogeneration is something that everyone should have been doing since the first power plants were built. Not doing it was an absolutely shocking oversight. However, recovering more heat from thermal power plants isn't as simple as just adding more cycles to the end of the process. Each cycle you need a larger and larger turbine as the density of the working fluid goes down, for diminishing energy returns. You can mitigate this a little by using different working fluids in the bottoming cycles, but there is a limit. The maximum efficiency you can really get with a bottoming cycle is about 20-25% unfortunately.

If you want distilled water, you use sea water in a open cycle (instead close), why you need an extra turbine?

If you want heat homes with your remaning high entropy heat, why you need an extra turbine?

MODERATORS: If someone break the rules, please penalize only that person please. Not close a tread just for 1 or 2 guys

Edited June 22, 2014 by AngelLestat