What is the answer to energy in the future?

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

Pretty good video. Learned a lot I didn't know before. So what is the solution. I don't know. But seems wind and solar won't solve everything.

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

Nuclear power.  

[Badlands Bob #61228]

I think those folks over in the U.K. and Germany are about to get a hard lesson in political correctness this next winter.  They have been busy closing their nuclear and coal power plants and relying on imported Russian gas.  Look at all the green house gasses they are saving.  Uh Oh. The Russians just cut off the supply claiming that the sanctions make getting pipeline parts impossible.  It gets really cold over there during the Winter.  They may be chopping up furniture to stay warm before it's over.

[Rye Miles #13621]

16 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Nuclear power.  

The big question is what do we do with the waste. I’m all for it but this seems to be the reason people are afraid of it. 

[Rip Snorter]

https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy-is-coming-and-maybe-sooner-than-you-think/

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

4 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The big question is what do we do with the waste. I’m all for it but this seems to be the reason people are afraid of it. 

That and the Not In My Backyard syndrome.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

5 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The big question is what do we do with the waste. I’m all for it but this seems to be the reason people are afraid of it. 

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl didn't help matters any.

[Still hand Bill]

12 minutes ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl didn't help matters any.

This is the big one.  There have been no new plants come online in the USA since three mile island.   Then add Fukushima into the mix.   

[Cliff Hanger #3720LR]

My opinion.

Governments try to build nuclear reactors to generate electricity on a scale that is too big. They try to power large sections of population from a single reactor.

 

I think if the government were to build several smaller reactors servicing individual communities, the problems of big reactors would go away. The equipment would be easier to maintain and replace aged parts. Today the US build small reactors that run nuclear submarines for 30 years without replacement. (the life span of the submarine) They are small in size and will fit in the back of a small pickup truck. There is a lot of support equipment that goes along with the reactor but is shielded from the radiation.

 

Solar power generation plants like Solar One in the desert east of Barstow lasted about 25 to 30 years and then the panels discriminated in to junk laying on the ground. This would require complete replacement of panels to continue. Not really cost effective.

 

Lately, wind generators have become so large that the blades are failing in high winds destroying the generators the blades are attached to. Again requiring complete replacement of the whole unit.

 

People who are experts in oil and gas have data that says the US has 400 to 500 years of oil still in the ground. I think in that time frame something new will present itself to replace oil and gas. Government seems to be in a rush to end oil and gas usage. And the alternatives they want to use will not be cost effective and the public will have to pay much more for all the mistakes that will come with the rushed options.

 

 

 

[Trailrider #896]

Small fission-based reactors could be an answer, but another possibility, now being studied by the Dept. of Defense is Orbital Solar Power satellites.  These would collect energy directly from the sun and turn it into microwaves that would send power to groundbased rectifying antennae or "rectennas".  The bandwidth of the microwaves would be wide enough so neither birds nor humans would be affected by flying or walking through it. 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

Cold fusion

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The big question is what do we do with the waste. I’m all for it but this seems to be the reason people are afraid of it. 

 

https://www.iaea.org/topics/processing

 

We are well past the era of "Put it in a drum and dump it in the ocean."

 

2 hours ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl didn't help matters any.

 

But have you noticed that there is almost never any mention of the years, decades, of safe operation in Europe, Asia, and North America?  Only the few outliers.

 

Fukushima....how many Richter scale 9+ earthquakes are there near nuclear power plants, and how many tsunamis oh that magnitude do we see?

[bgavin]

"The Inferno" by Dan Brown

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Wave energy

[Pat Riot]

I slept no more than 60’ from the #2 nuclear reactor aboard the USS Virginia for nearly 3 years when I was in the Navy and I am just fine. 
 

Hey! Who’s laughing over there?

I am too normal! 
Bottles, no more for they guy!

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Small modular reactors. 

[Slapshot]

Black Gold.................Until its gone.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

This could be unpopular, but the other half of the energy issue is consumption rate.  Someday, we could have to choose between air pollution, nuke waste disposal issues,  winter warmth, summer cooling, TV for 5 or 7 hours every evening, charging EVs, filling up at the gas pump, or having school kids do everything on computers. 

 

 We've become awfully spoiled and addicted to electrons.  It is possible to do without any of it.  My wife and I do that backpacking for several weeks each year.

 

I think the eventual solution will have to be a mix of distasteful and inefficient energy production options, balanced by becomming unspoiled.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Dilithium crystals is the answer!

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

I'm going to say Hydrogen.

[Dusty Devil Dale]

Atmospherium.  

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

9 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

This could be unpopular, but the other half of the energy issue is consumption rate.  Someday, we could have to choose between air pollution, nuke waste disposal issues,  winter warmth, summer cooling, TV for 5 or 7 hours every evening, charging EVs, filling up at the gas pump, or having school kids do everything on computers. 

 

 We've become awfully spoiled and addicted to electrons.  It is possible to do without any of it.  My wife and I do that backpacking for several weeks each year.

 

I think the eventual solution will have to be a mix of distasteful and inefficient energy production options, balanced by becomming unspoiled.

Dusty Devil Dale for the win!  In discussing any constrained natural resource, whether fossil fuels or water, nobody likes talking about reducing consumption.  Everyone likes their personal automobiles, electric lights, and long showers, but those are the elephants in the room. 
 

The root cause of Lake Mead shrinking is that more water is being taken out than is flowing in. We can discuss long term options like slowing climate change, but the fastest fix is reduced consumption.  But that would require a sacrifice we’re not willing to make.  

 

Same with energy.  Wind/solar/hydro won’t get us where we need to be.  Fusion has been “20 years away” for the last fifty years. An intelligent nuclear program with SMRs holds the most promise, but has that nasty nuclear element.  Reducing consumption is barely discussed.

[Slapshot]

Global Warming Climate change. Aren't the Polar bears long extinct from the polar ice caps and glaciers melting away years ago as been predicted by Al Gore back in what 93? Wasn't the increased water from the melted caps supposed to cause coastal flooding also? 

 

Wait for it, wait for it, yeah still nothing. 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

On the east coast, we don't seem to have any problem with producing electricity or transmitting it safely.    We still have water in our lakes and nuclear power plants along with gas and coal powered power plants.  We also allow and even expect, our power companies to trim the trees away from the power lines.  All this global warming seems to be a left coast problem.  I think it's more of a mismanagement problem.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 hours ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

We also allow and even expect, our power companies to trim the trees away from the power lines

 

In 2020 during the Glass Fire on Sonoma and Napa Counties PG&E was trying to do trimming around Placerville CA.  Protesters were climbing the trees to prevent this necessary maintenance.

[Buckshot Bob]

Nuclear , oil , coal . The same as they are right now . We have plenty in the USA 

Although I think we should work on better sources such as hydrogen. Nothing wrong with wind and solar as supplemental until they come up with some technology that allows it to become practical. But it just isn’t right now, I think we’ve pretty much proven that. I also think hydro is a good source where it’s available. Just have to put a bypass in for the fishes and put the green peace people in their place. Humans are part of the environment no matter how much they hate that fact 

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

Locally on TV they are advertising a small nuclear plant. It uses some sort of modular reactor. It has enough power to power a city. They say the first one will be on line by 2030!

[bgavin]

51 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

In 2020 during the Glass Fire on Sonoma and Napa Counties PG&E was trying to do trimming around Placerville CA.  Protesters were climbing the trees to prevent this necessary maintenance.

Here in CA, the hippies have blocked responsible logging and maintenance for decades.
Now, all the little critters they wanted to protect, have been burned alive in massive fires.

If there was no combustibles below power lines, nothing would burn if a line came down.
Then again, when the maintenance budget is redirected toward "green energy" by the politicians, not much maintenance gets done.
If you were burned out, you can thank a hippie.

[Texas Joker]

Johannesburg pebble bed reactors. Gas cooled graphite bedded and cannot have a runaway reaction. 

 

Until fusion pans out and we can create an energy surplus we have to work from a position of scarcity, either artificial or imposed.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

The answer? I call it the "shotgun effect"...use everything we can to produce energy. 

 

Use fossil fuels, and nuclear, and wind, and solar, and wave, hydro-electric, some electric, while our scientists work on finding new fuels that are better, cleaner, cheaper, etc. 

 

I heard the founder of the Weather Channel, the other day on one of the fake news medias (cnn, or msnbc, I can't remember which), and before they could shut him up, say that climate change, that is heavily affected by fossil fuels/and man, is a myth.

He said he could find scientists that would back him up, just as those that advocate for only "green energy". So, evidently there is still debate on the "climate change" issue, and it is not universally accepted as being gospel.

Regardless, we are not in a position to switch off of fossil fuels totally, at this time, whether al gore, or biden, or john carey, or anyone else, likes it or not.  

We possibly could be lifetimes away. We are not there yet...how difficult is that to understand? 

 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

The political agenda has, so far, driven the world populations to believe that the climate is warming, and that human activity is the cause.  "Scientists" (and nowadays, I use that term very loosely and in quotes) are coming up with all kinds of correlation-regression "studies" to ostensibly and falsely prove the popular cause-effect theory, even though they know that correlation and regression are not tools that can determine cause-effect.  But the agenda-aligned publications do keep their financial grant stream alive.

 

  Agencies are being told that in order to get budget allocations for new programs, the programs  must be linked to Climate Change and to reducing Ozone and other  chemical oxidants in the upper atmosphere.  So naturally, reduction in fossil fuel development is seen as the Holy Grail in curtailing anthropogenic climate change.

 

That is all well underway now.  But let's be a bit less arrogant for a moment.  What if all of those widely accepted "scientific" theories are NOT correct?  (Note that the "scientists"  actual predictive track record has been much less than accurate).

What if the climate is in fact warming again (we know it has cycled in the past), but it is not human caused, and therefore cannot be controlled by our human actions and reactions?

The simple fact is that if the climate warms, as the "scientists" are predicting, then a lot of people are going to die, worldwide, regardless of the climatic causations.  

 

Our ability to survive those ultra warm spells may well depend upon our mobility and cooling strategies, which points to a need to have storehouses of various fuels, to power cooling systems for health and food refridgeration. 

But the current agenda alignment is taking us in the exact opposite direction, as we curtail development of coal and  petro chemicals,  and wring our hands in fear over nuclear power development.  

 

Perhaps we should control our new-found "scientific" arrogance and begin thinking about survival contingency planning.  We simply may not be able to stop climatic change, no matter what we convince ourselves to do.  

 

 

 

[Buckshot Bob]

17 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I slept no more than 60’ from the #2 nuclear reactor aboard the USS Virginia for nearly 3 years when I was in the Navy 
 

So now we know what happed  

[Buckshot Bob]

3 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

Locally on TV they are advertising a small nuclear plant. It uses some sort of modular reactor. It has enough power to power a city. They say the first one will be on line by 2030!

I read somewhere on the internet the military is supposedly going to be using them soon to power remotely set up bases 

[Slapshot]

We would actually have to be in a climate change scenario first. Scientist say what ever gets them million and billion dollar grants. 

[Dusty Devil Dale]

2 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I read somewhere on the internet the military is supposedly going to be using them soon to power remotely set up bases 

I recall being on Kawai when Hurricane Iwa took out all power on the island.  The Navy docked a nuke submarine at a municipal dock, and ran emergency power from their nuclear powerplant.  I recall being amazed at how quickly they made the connections and got it working.

(and if anybody died from nuclear radiation, I didn't hear about it. )