Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
MonteQuest wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course all of the solar budget is spoken for, how could it possibly be any other way?
Exactly. The laws of thermodynamics dictates it to be so. It is all spoken for in an evolutionary ecological system that allows life to even exist.
This is why CO2 has had such a profound impact on climate. It changes the amount of heat re-radiated into space that gives us thermodynamic equilbrium with space.
Utterly unrelated to the solar budget for solar power. When you put up a solar thermal plant and keep the albedo of the earth the same, the thermal balance of the planet is exactly the same. You simply extract more work.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Dezakin wrote:
I realize that many on this forum expect humanity to die off in a century or less to some population of 2 billion with diminished industrial capacity and live like peasants in the middle ages, but I dont.
Nor do I. It's possible, but, I think, unlikely. Hopefully, those that remain will figure out a better living arrangement than that. It doesn't have to be a technological society to be satisfying.
Dezakin wrote:
I certainly hope that solar (pv concentrators, solar thermal, whatever) is eventually economic, but I dont delude myself into expecting so.
I don't think economics should come into it. If it makes sense, energy-wise, then that should be enough, though we should only build what makes ecological sense.
Dezakin wrote:
Solar poses far less risk than nuclear over the long term (outside proliferation concerns) because solar makes use of the energy that the earths environment allready deals with, while nuclear adds new energy entirely to the environment which must be disapated.
Not only that but a build up in nuclear would inevitably lead to a higher incidence of accidents, some of them severe (statistically speaking). It's also an unsustainable energy source.
Dezakin wrote:
I suspect humanity will simply have to deal with a much warmer world even if we sequestered all of the CO2 that we emitted over the industrial era because we will cross the petawatt threshhold into 1-10% of the solar flux. How we deal with this is uncertain.
We shouldn't need to deal with it. We don't need that much energy.
Dezakin wrote:
I suspect much of heavy industry will simply have to move off world for reasons of heat dissapation.
I think that highly unlikely. Off world industry is not even on the distant horizon. That doesn't mean it won't happen but it would require a stable world and a growing economy for a very long time (at least until the end of the century, I suspect).
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
I realize that many on this forum expect humanity to die off in a century or less to some population of 2 billion with diminished industrial capacity and live like peasants in the middle ages, but I dont.
Nor do I. It's possible, but, I think, unlikely. Hopefully, those that remain will figure out a better living arrangement than that. It doesn't have to be a technological society to be satisfying.
Its not about whats satisfying. People want to be happy but civilization wants something else apparently.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
I certainly hope that solar (pv concentrators, solar thermal, whatever) is eventually economic, but I dont delude myself into expecting so.
I don't think economics should come into it. If it makes sense, energy-wise, then that should be enough, though we should only build what makes ecological sense.
You're confusing what you find desirable with whats likely. If its not economically competitive its not going to happen. I would vastly prefer completely stopping the build of new coal power plants globally in favor of nuclear power. Its feasable, but its not going to happen untill coal gets expensive.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
Solar poses far less risk than nuclear over the long term (outside proliferation concerns) because solar makes use of the energy that the earths environment allready deals with, while nuclear adds new energy entirely to the environment which must be disapated.
Not only that but a build up in nuclear would inevitably lead to a higher incidence of accidents, some of them severe (statistically speaking).
Chernobyl painted a picture of the worst accident you can possibly have when you have an unsafe reactor with zero safety culture. It amounts to some small jump in thyroid cancers in an iodine deficent area. Not to belittle it, it was a terrible tragedy, but there were far worse industrial accidents that paint it more as real estate crisis more than a life threatening crisis. Theres far more danger from hydroelectric and coal facilities. Banqiao dam killed tens of thousands overnight and a hundred thousand more over the next several months. Or Bhopal where tens of thousands more were snuffed out. I suspect there is exceptionalism against nuclear for some reason.
That western reactor designs are incapable of such accidents is incedental.
Quote:
It's also an unsustainable energy source.
Only in the same way the sun is unsustainable. We've been over this... I dont know why you keep asserting that.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
I suspect humanity will simply have to deal with a much warmer world even if we sequestered all of the CO2 that we emitted over the industrial era because we will cross the petawatt threshhold into 1-10% of the solar flux. How we deal with this is uncertain.
We shouldn't need to deal with it. We don't need that much energy.
Thats a qualitative judgement that you don't get to make. Human civilization doesn't need billions of individuals to all have their own home with indoor plumbing, but thats where its headed.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
I suspect much of heavy industry will simply have to move off world for reasons of heat dissapation.
I think that highly unlikely. Off world industry is not even on the distant horizon. That doesn't mean it won't happen but it would require a stable world and a growing economy for a very long time (at least until the end of the century, I suspect).
I wouldn't judge it any sooner than that either. Perhaps we're talking on entirely different time horizons.
Over the next century (barring some possible AI revolution in productivity that jumps economic growth into the range of 30% or greater) I don't expect the global energy budget to be greater than 10-20 times todays energy budget of 15 terawatts. Perhaps 200 terawatts at 2100, in line with the 2% growth of the last century. This doesn't represent a sizable fraction of the earths ability to dissapate heat at 10^17 watts.
It only begins to buckle in 2200 if energy demand/production growth continues at 2% throughout 2100-2200. Its during this period you would expect much of the heavy industry to start moving off world. For reasons of heat dissapation, energy supply, and an utter lack of any issue of environmental waste sinks. Not to mention an abundance of siedrophile minerals that on earth are unreachable simply because they largely sank to the core eons ago.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Dezakin wrote:
Its not about whats satisfying. People want to be happy but civilization wants something else apparently.
Yes, that's a bummer. But then, if enough people want just to be happy, maybe civilization can tag along. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Dezakin wrote:
Quote:
I don't think economics should come into it. If it makes sense, energy-wise, then that should be enough, though we should only build what makes ecological sense.
You're confusing what you find desirable with whats likely. If its not economically competitive its not going to happen.
Oh, I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware that economics rules. I wrote what was desirable, not what was likely, until current attitudes change.
Quote:
Chernobyl painted a picture of the worst accident you can possibly have when you have an unsafe reactor with zero safety culture. It amounts to some small jump in thyroid cancers in an iodine deficent area. Not to belittle it, it was a terrible tragedy, but there were far worse industrial accidents that paint it more as real estate crisis more than a life threatening crisis. Theres far more danger from hydroelectric and coal facilities. Banqiao dam killed tens of thousands overnight and a hundred thousand more over the next several months. Or Bhopal where tens of thousands more were snuffed out. I suspect there is exceptionalism against nuclear for some reason.
I don't think Chernobyl was the worst possible. But the chance of the worst possible increases as the number of installations increase and the number of varied societies that have nuclear power increases. I don't think this aspect should be taken lightly.
Dezakin wrote:
Quote:
It's also an unsustainable energy source.
Only in the same way the sun is unsustainable. We've been over this... I dont know why you keep asserting that.
Because it's true. That you have an unswerving belief in millions of years supply doesn't alter that fact. If a case could be made for nuclear build, I'd caution that we only build what we know we can fuel for the lifetime of the facility. If the other problems with nuclear can be answered satisfactorily, then building only what can be fueled should satisfy you also, since known proved reserves of the necessary fuel, at the required rate, will grow with time.
Dezakin wrote:
Thats a qualitative judgement that you don't get to make. Human civilization doesn't need billions of individuals to all have their own home with indoor plumbing, but thats where its headed.
I take your point. Perhaps "need" is too emotive a word. What I meant was that we can have very happy satisfying lives with a lot less energy. But, as you say, the world doesn't seem to bother about inconvenient truths like that.
Dezakin wrote:
Its during this period you would expect much of the heavy industry to start moving off world.
As I've said, I don't expect that to happen. I don't expect a stable global civilization for the length of time it would take. I'm not totally convinced we'd actually have the resources or that it would ever be economical (which is currently a deciding factor).
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
Quote:
Chernobyl painted a picture of the worst accident you can possibly have when you have an unsafe reactor with zero safety culture. It amounts to some small jump in thyroid cancers in an iodine deficent area. Not to belittle it, it was a terrible tragedy, but there were far worse industrial accidents that paint it more as real estate crisis more than a life threatening crisis. Theres far more danger from hydroelectric and coal facilities. Banqiao dam killed tens of thousands overnight and a hundred thousand more over the next several months. Or Bhopal where tens of thousands more were snuffed out. I suspect there is exceptionalism against nuclear for some reason.
I don't think Chernobyl was the worst possible.
Well, a reactor of nearly 5 GW thermal capacity, nearly twice the size of most large western reactors, went into overdrive to nearly 40 GW, and blew up without a containment and vaporized nearly 10% of the core in an urban area. I suppose you could hypothesize somehow vaporizing 100% of the core in the middle of a metropolis. I can't imagine how such a reactor would ever be built or permitted that was capable of that without a containment. While Chernobyl was a terrible tradgedy it actually is illustrative of a worst case nuclear accident and useful for making worst case planning projections. And the town of Pripyat has become an interesting wildlife sanctuary since.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
Quote:
It's also an unsustainable energy source.
Only in the same way the sun is unsustainable. We've been over this... I dont know why you keep asserting that.
Because it's true. That you have an unswerving belief in millions of years supply doesn't alter that fact. If a case could be made for nuclear build, I'd caution that we only build what we know we can fuel for the lifetime of the facility. If the other problems with nuclear can be answered satisfactorily, then building only what can be fueled should satisfy you also, since known proved reserves of the necessary fuel, at the required rate, will grow with time.
You should check my thread on the liquid fluoride hydrogen production reactor. The liquid fluoride thorium breeder is in my opinion the ideal reactor regime because it utilizes thorium as the fuel, which is 3 times as plentiful as uranium, and uses 1/200th the fuel and produces 1/1000th the radioactive waste. Of the radioactive waste, the longest lived half life fission products (outside of two isotopes that can be converted in reactors if so desired to stable isotopes) are 30 years; After 300 years its far less radioactive than the ore it was originally mined from.
Quote:
Dezakin wrote:
Its during this period you would expect much of the heavy industry to start moving off world.
As I've said, I don't expect that to happen. I don't expect a stable global civilization for the length of time it would take. I'm not totally convinced we'd actually have the resources or that it would ever be economical (which is currently a deciding factor).
Fair enough. I expect the global economy and energy production/demand will relatively smoothly grow untill the only place for expansion is space, and you expect we'll run into problems that will prevent us from getting that far.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
But then, you don't know. The research has not been done. I've only seen one proposal that tried to seriously consider environmental impacts, though there wasn't enough detail to determine how much research had been done.
I don't know in the same way I don't know if I'll get crushed by an elephant today
It's not the same way at all. What a bizarre thought. Unless you regularly walk under a tightrope walking elephant troupe, you can be fairly certain that an elephant won't fall on you. If it did, it would affect only you and maybe anyone in the immediate vicinity.
It isn't similar except for exposure to risk. Very little in the way of assessments of solar thermal have been done due to the minimal risks involved, as dictated by the studies that have been carried out. While soalr thermal may be the elephant in the room, most are fairly certain it won't step on us.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
but given the scale involved it would be quite unlikely to see externalities as significant as what we see now.
I agree, but that's not what I was arguing anyway.
I never claimed you were.
TonyPrep wrote:
As for scale, well, you are basing your view on what you assume the impact of small scale diversion would be. If that suits you, that's fine, but it proves nothing.
At the end of this paper the general statement can be formulated that, from an ecological point of view, nothing is opposed to the expansion of solar thermal energy in North Africa and a transmission of the generated solar electricity to Europe.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
For instance, assuming "we can make do with half of the power we use now, that would make the effort more realisable and probably reduce any environmental impact." We would only reduce externalities such as GHG emissions, by half.
You've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying let's use fossil fuels but only at half the rate. I was saying lets cut down our energy use and aim for building renewable energy infrastructure only at the level we really need, not what we want.
That would be ideal. Although AFAIK excessive renewable infrastructure is much better than even limited fossil fuel, up to ~1/1000th of what we have today.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You can harp on as much as you want
Please keep OT, If you wish to flame there's a forum for that.
It wasn't a flame.
Sure it was. We don't need to make disparaging remarks. Simply stating that someone said/wrote/whatever something is enough. Granted, it isn't as bad as a lot I've seen, but it's superfluous and we can both stay strictly OT if we choose to.
TonyPrep wrote:
When the science shows what you believe to be the case, then we can build to the limit shown by such research. Until then, we should go very carefully, hopefully learning from our bad assumptions in the past.
Physics, as well as a bit of research, shows what I believe to be the case. Unless of course you have some insight regarding basic physics and/or personal research that shows it to be incorrect? In any event, AFAIK, since all the energy we could use from solar thermal falls within the variation naturally seen, not only would positing externalities regarding the solar budget be hard to establish, testing it would take ages. If you have any information that changes this I would certainly like to see it. _________________
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Quote:
There is no extra solar to be had. It's all tied up in a complex interconnected web of life and thermal systems. Something that currently uses that energy would have to give it up.
Evidence? I thought all the energy we needed could be collected in a small fraction of our deserts. Monte... what happens to the heat in the desert? Hmmm? Why is Co2 soooo much worse than solar thermal? The solar heat normally bounces back into space! We can't possibly inhibit that in any meaningful way with solar thermal. _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
Why is Co2 soooo much worse than solar thermal?
This seems to pop up quite a bit in these discussions. No-one is suggesting solar thermal, or any other solar energy is worse than CO2. At least I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
It's the clue as to the real villain, an over-laden atmosphere. Also the cure. Once the atmosphere cleans up, all that heat will just bounce back into space.
The albedo's we are discussing are so tiny that I can't imagine why you are continuing to express... whatever it is you are trying to express. "Nothing wrong with solar thermal.. but be careful.... because there could be something wrong with solar thermal... so go slow..."
We cannot possibly go fast enough. _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
yesplease wrote:
Very little in the way of assessments of solar thermal have been done due to the minimal risks involved, as dictated by the studies that have been carried out.
Can you point to any? I'd certainly be interested to know that there are no environmental risks from solar, to a certain level of build.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
but given the scale involved it would be quite unlikely to see externalities as significant as what we see now.
I agree, but that's not what I was arguing anyway.
I never claimed you were.
I don't know why you brought it up, then, in a reply to my post.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
As for scale, well, you are basing your view on what you assume the impact of small scale diversion would be. If that suits you, that's fine, but it proves nothing.
That is a paper looking at the environmental impacts of high voltage DC transmission lines, not solar power in its entirety.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying let's use fossil fuels but only at half the rate. I was saying lets cut down our energy use and aim for building renewable energy infrastructure only at the level we really need, not what we want.
That would be ideal. Although AFAIK excessive renewable infrastructure is much better than even limited fossil fuel, up to ~1/1000th of what we have today.
So? I never said it wasn't.
yesplease wrote:
not only would positing externalities regarding the solar budget be hard to establish, testing it would take ages.
Yes, I imagine it would. I did urge caution, and a much slower build up that many here seem to want.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
Well, sorry Tony but all the signs are solar is growing exponentially, and yet still not fast enough for me. The climatologists appear unified that solar is the way to go... sorry old chum, but just saying "BEWARE THE ELEPHANTS" + "BUY MY ELEPHANT WHISTLE" 20 times over doesn't prove there ever was a problem in the first place. _________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
TonyPrep wrote:
Can you point to any? I'd certainly be interested to know that there are no environmental risks from solar, to a certain level of build.
The pdf I linked has a section titled...
Life Cycle Assessment of a solar electricity production and transmission scheme
That you may find interesting. There aren't any externalities associated w/ operation aside from the potential for leakage of oil if it's used as a heat carrier instead of water AFAIK.
TonyPrep wrote:
I don't know why you brought it up, then, in a reply to my post.
Just typing out loud...
TonyPrep wrote:
That is a paper looking at the environmental impacts of high voltage DC transmission lines, not solar power in its entirety.
Ditto what I said above, the LCA addresses both. Most, if not practically all, of the externalized costs of a solar thermal plant come from the processing of materials it uses, which are unfortunately still quite polluting. FWIW, the time period required to amortize the initial energy costs is very small at under half a year. Given how long solar thermal plants could run, I wouldn't be surprised if the EROEI could be well over a hundred during it's lifetime.
TonyPrep wrote:
So? I never said it wasn't.
I never said you said it wasn't, see above wrt typing again.
TonyPrep wrote:
Yes, I imagine it would. I did urge caution, and a much slower build up that many here seem to want.
The only problem w/ that is the slower the build the more Carbon is dumped into the atmosphere. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
eclipse wrote:
Well, sorry Tony but all the signs are solar is growing exponentially, and yet still not fast enough for me. The climatologists appear unified that solar is the way to go... sorry old chum, but just saying "BEWARE THE ELEPHANTS" + "BUY MY ELEPHANT WHISTLE" 20 times over doesn't prove there ever was a problem in the first place.
True, just as your saying it's a fait accompli doesn't prove there wasn't or isn't.
As usually happens with us humans, I expect we'll try another grand blindfolded experiment and keep our fingers crossed. However, I doubt it will grow as fast as you seem to think.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Can you point to any? I'd certainly be interested to know that there are no environmental risks from solar, to a certain level of build.
The pdf I linked has a section titled...
Life Cycle Assessment of a solar electricity production and transmission scheme
That you may find interesting. There aren't any externalities associated w/ operation aside from the potential for leakage of oil if it's used as a heat carrier instead of water AFAIK.
Indeed, though it suggests an alternative heat carrier would eliminate this impact. However, as you say, it doesn't really cover the wider environmental impacts and, maybe, acknowledges this: Because not all environmental impacts were taken into account, the performed eco-balance can only be considered as general view of an eco-balance. It is essentially a study of the impacts of construction and transmission.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Yes, I imagine it would. I did urge caution, and a much slower build up that many here seem to want.
The only problem w/ that is the slower the build the more Carbon is dumped into the atmosphere.
Which is why I also support a reduction in energy use. Specifically, fossil fuel energy use.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Hydrogen economy - The physics
From Dr Gerry Wolff, an expert in Solar thermal technologies and leading member of the TREC movement.
Quote:
I believe that any albedo effect would be very small and probably in the right direction - helping to cool the planet.
The MED-CSP report from the German Aerospace Centre (which can be downloaded from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm) contains a section on the environmental impacts of CSP plants and albedo has only one brief mention. Clearly, it is not regarded as a significant problem. Perhaps you could post something to that effect in the appropriate part of the forum.
_________________ www.eclipsenow.blogspot.com
Free peak oil posters to download, print out, and put up at your local shops and library.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
