Slowpoke wrote:BOTH.
Slowpoke wrote:BOTH.
Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?
orz wrote:Are we hoping for a transition from fission to fusion, bypassing the renewable route?
Fusion is infinite energy relative to our lifetimes.
cube wrote:I firmly believe the energy source of the future will be whatever energy source that is the "cheapest". With that said coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric will dominate the 21st century. Yes I know this is where the greenies will protest. But lets be serious here folks, when you get your monthly electricity bill does anyone here honestly think running off a solar panel or windmill will give you lower rates?
EXACTLY
For anybody who thinks windmills and solar panels are cheaper perhaps they should "put their money where their mouth is" by propping one up in their back yard.
But even if the arguments had been presented in a single post, I believe that some people would still have a hard time to follow the rationale. However let me try and make it clear (at least to you)
Your post does reflect a probably oversimplified (I do not want to use the word myopic) interpretation of the "pro-technology" people (what ever that word may mean). It is implicitly assumed that the only reason to propose a certain technical solution, is to maintain the "status quo" , the culture of consumerism etc. But this is not necessarily the case ... there are engineering reasons to go for a certain solution which have nothing to do with the status quo. Even though I have heard people claiming that "renewable/distributed micro-grids" are the way forward, I am not aware of any study that has shown that such microgrids can support an industrial activity that can recreate these micro-grids if they fail. Show me a factory that can reliably generate wind turbines/solar panels based on wind turbines/solar panels and I may reconsider. These industrial processes need reliable and stable electricity generation , something that the renewables cannot do YET but they might be able to do in the future. Therefore a renewable based society is not a technically sustainable society YET. This has nothing to do with powerdown/powerups/wasteful lifestyles but everything to do with the nature of the technologies we are considering. IT does no matter how much you powerdown when brown-outs fry your equipment. Unfortunately people (including Greenpeace) do not get this simple fact and will likely never get it because of ideological bias.
Let's come to a second (far more important reason) for considering and pushing for nuclear power. The name of the game is "Climate Change/Global Warming". If any of the projections made by our coupled simulation runs are to be believed, this world is going to experience a rise in temperatures, coupled with water shortages and a reduction in the NPP (Net Primary Productivity) of both hemispheres. For example HadCM3 predicts that in the case the GS shuts down ....NPP in South America and the Indias will decline by 110% (this means that there will be literaly nothing left i.e. vegetations, animals and humans).
In such an environment a reilable source of energy to desalinate water, and even synthesize ammonia based fertilizers to sustain not only the evil humans but also the eco-systems we are not "ravaging". Renewables will not be able to support such activities due to intermittancy and their reliance on the weather (Wind) for energy harvesting.
(BTW I'd appreciate if people do not start the oil-is-food meme with me on the fertilizer issue. I have researched the fertilizer issue and one can read why we cannot run of fertilizers as long we have electricity , water and nitrogen in the Ammonia thread. )
So Ibon, even though I do agree with many (not all) of the things you have said about the "status quo" I have to take into account the engineering technicalities of the energy issue. And these technicalities made me think (and write) that nuclear is the best bet
Devil wrote:Your poll is silly. You have 2 options, one OR the other.
Devil wrote:The only real option is to use variable renewables up to ~20% of peak demand, backed up by fixed renewables and nuclear, in that order.
IslandCrow wrote:Will I be able to adjust my lifestyle enough? Most likely not.
funzone36 wrote:I support renewables but not fission or fusion.
If we go the nuclear fission route, we'll be in uranium peak in 10 years. It's been proven by 2 scientists.
Nuclear fusion is not technically feasible.
In the end, a combination of renewables that are sustainable is the best route.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests