Poll: What energy source do you prefer?

Started by Irtaviš Ačankif, October 10, 2011, 06:30:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which of the following energy sources do you like the best? Or in other words, which of the following would you want your country to totally use? Future sources such as nuclear fusion are not included.

Fossil fuel power
1 (2.9%)
Biomass power
2 (5.7%)
Solar power
7 (20%)
Wind power
8 (22.9%)
Tidal power
0 (0%)
Nuclear power
12 (34.3%)
Geothermal power
2 (5.7%)
Wave power
0 (0%)
Hydroelectric dams
2 (5.7%)
Other (specify)
1 (2.9%)

Total Members Voted: 34

Ningey



"Sawtute ke tsun nivume - fo ke kerame!"
-- Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

"There are two things that are infinite: Human stupidity and the universe. However, I'm not yet sure about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither and loses both."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Irtaviš Ačankif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

That article is a problem article that actually includes accidents such as power outages and people getting electrocuted by the equipment. The vast majority (>95%) of the accidents listed there have nothing to do with radiation or meltdowns.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Tsyal Maktoyu

#42
Quote from: Tsmuktengan on October 26, 2011, 05:49:26 AM
Additionally, those tile would use far more ressources and energy in building, conception and maintenance than it would produce. There would be a lot of waste, far more than the energy we would produce by stepping on those tile.

They're made from recycled materials.

And it wouldn't make walking any more strenuous because it's not like the tile is absorbing any more kinetic energy out of the foot than any current floor paneling, it's just converting into electricity what would otherwise be lost in current concrete pavings. Energy is always absorbed/transferred by the floors any time you walk, it's just that now we have the ability to harness that energy. Plus, it's made of rubber, so walking over it would also probably be more comfortable than walking over concrete.

Let me reiterate: It's not about taking more energy, it's only about harnessing what is there. The numbers for the Fnet equation are exactly the same, the only difference is that the energy is captured into an electrical circuit instead of simply waving out/becoming thermal energy like it is now.

Again, if the numbers are so bad, why are people bothering to invest in this?


Revolutionist

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". - Denis Diderot

ExLibrisMortis

They are investing in it purely on Ideaology. Much like how people believe that we can give social services that are beyond what a nation brings in in taxes.

And I didn't say absorbing more kinetic energy, I'm talking about force. Force is a bit different than energy. The hard floor causes a normal force that reacts directly in opposition to gravity. If you take away a portion of that force, it causes much more strain on the individual to make up for that loss. You actually -do- lose force.

And, yes, it does cost a lot more in resources and ecological impact to make the devices than anything it'll ever produce. At least in its state today. If it was made to be extremely super effecient, then sure, there's a possibility.

And the reason why harnessing the energy out there is not done so much is because you have to look at cost effectiveness and feasibility in comparison to any other options out there. It takes a lot of resources to generate energy, the most immediate is the economic impact.

Tsyal Maktoyu

#44
Any reduced force would only be incidental to the fact that the medium that the energy absorber is in is soft rubber, that can be remedied easily by eventually converting to a harder medium.

But you guys are still thinking in terms like these are going to be lining mile-upon-mile of floors. These are meant to pepper areas of high foot traffic, or line areas of constant travel, such as stairways, subway stations, or busy sidewalks. I highly doubt that stepping on the occasional rubber mat is going to sap people of their energy.

Are you sure that long term they would not pay off? They already have a reduced production footprint because they are made of recycled materials. They are fairly good at absorbing energy (one step powers an LED for 30 seconds, 250,000 steps charge 10,000 cell phones), now expand those numbers out over years...decades. Are you telling me that a pad is honestly not going to payback it's production energy over a decade or two of continuous use (and when I say that, contemplate just how many people pass over a high foot traffic area every minute)?

And again, remember that it's not like these are meant to become a main source of electricity for grids, they are meant to supplement grid power, or take some things off grid.

Here's a more recent article from Gizmag, with some more info.

http://www.gizmag.com/pavegen-tiles-kinetic-energy-harvesting/20235/


Revolutionist

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". - Denis Diderot

ExLibrisMortis

Yes, I do see them being as a viable source of supplemental energy. If a government or people decide that this is a viable solution to spend their money on, then by all means, let them do it. And no, I didn't believe it was going to be entire sidewalks made of this stuff.

When you factor in production, you also have to factor in the process in which it is made, not just the materials. The processes can tap certain ecologically damaging resources or wastes. Also, one has to look at the feasibility and cost of maintenance. Is this material going to be really hard to fix? What's its potential of breaking due to the way it operates/weather/human error/etc?

I would personally look at it while taking out the "wow" factor, or the subjectiveness. I wouldn't really care if it pleased people or if it made you look better. I would simply weigh the hard facts of logistics, then go from there. 2 cents.

Irtaviš Ačankif

If they convert to a hard material, then they won't be able to collect energy. Hard tiles that don't budge won't produce work, since W = F * x and x is displacement. Soft rubber is the only way to go if you want a big displacement.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

Human No More

Quote from: Ningey on October 23, 2011, 08:47:34 PM
Wind, of course, directly followed by solar panels (the latter to back up if the former doesn't produce enough due to too little wind). Northern Germany is flat enough so that the wind has sufficient room, plus there are many sufficiently high (and thus exposed) spots that make it possible.

As far as the hype on nuclear power is concerned, I cannot fathom why. First of all, it's extremely dangerous (you see what happens if a nuclear power plant blows up), second, where are you going to leave the nuclear wastes, and third, there have been quite some technical problems that had been subject to report (not counting those incidents that have NOT been reported although they should have been).
In my opinion that is too risky a gamble...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html


Part of the manufacturing supply chain for wind power (and also solar, although not mentioned in the article). But then again, "out of sight, out of mind", right? - who cares about China's environment as long as the west gets token gestures?

A fission reactor can not spontaneously explode, because there isn't enough fissile materiel to. Creating a viable device requires an EXTREME level of technological sophistication - there were cases during the cold war of weapons surviving aircraft crashes without going off, because the timing needs to be perfect.
"I can barely remember my old life. I don't know who I am any more."

HNM, not 'Human' :)

Na'vi tattoo:
1 | 2 (finished) | 3
ToS: Human No More
dA
Personal site coming soon(ish

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."
- Richard P. Feynman

Ningey

Quote from: Human No More on October 29, 2011, 07:04:42 PM

[...]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

[image clipped out]

Part of the manufacturing supply chain for wind power (and also solar, although not mentioned in the article). But then again, "out of sight, out of mind", right? - who cares about China's environment as long as the west gets token gestures?

A fission reactor can not spontaneously explode, because there isn't enough fissile materiel to. Creating a viable device requires an EXTREME level of technological sophistication - there were cases during the cold war of weapons surviving aircraft crashes without going off, because the timing needs to be perfect.

Well, get things to my attention and I'm going to keep them in mind, though...
Looks like we are stuck in a quandary here: Which option is the least problematic?

The other problem that bothers me is that to actually come up with something viable, things are easily getting quite expensive, and expensive isn't really popular (but rather the opposite). Obviously there's something wrong in the line of manufacturing, however, to keep things cheap safety measures (both for the workers and for the environment) are neglected or completely omitted very often.
Yet to produce environmentally safe you would have to implement an overhead in safeguards and other equipment to prevent disaster, which in turn makes things expensive and thus unpopular. Yes, far too many people want things to be cheap (there are a lot more issues with that, but they would become off-topic)...

As for fossil fuels, I guess we don't have to talk about that one, but - again - producing nuclear power is like balancing on the edge of a knife: You have very little margin for error, and if things go haywire, you have a problem as well (I'm not talking about those things that the safeguards have been able to handle but rather about tampering with things - if it's done unintentionally or deliberately matters only insofar as how the incident has to be considered - Acts of God or even more sinister intentions).

Quo vadis?


"Sawtute ke tsun nivume - fo ke kerame!"
-- Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

"There are two things that are infinite: Human stupidity and the universe. However, I'm not yet sure about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither and loses both."
-- Benjamin Franklin

ExLibrisMortis

By and By, Nuclear Fission, in its current state, is the most economical and environmentally sound way to go. It just is. Of course the entire process can be made much more efficient, but when we are able to do Fusion at temperatures that are controllable and acceptable, then that will be the best way for us to produce our energy. Yet, every nation needs not to even build a single new energy producing facility. All we need to do is upgrade our entire infrastructure, and if not the entire thing then the most used portions, and you will see such an increase in efficiency and effectiveness that it will be like building "x" amount of more energy producing sites. Politics needs to leave the realm of energy, and we just need statesmen to actually get things done. People who care more about the next generation and not the next election. Once we have that going, then its cake from there.

auroraglacialis

Hmm I am the only one who put in geothermal? Horsepower and walking certainly sounds fine, too. :) I am usually more lurking here in the forum but I feel compelled to comment on energy sources  :-[

The problem is that this really would have to be an energy mix depending on country and what natural energy potential there is. Also conservation and "smart usage" will have to play a role. I found a good booklet looking at the options (it is a bit biased against fossil fuel power, but that is fine with me): http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50695

I think a major problem is that to keep consuming at the rate we do now, only a few options are realistic and all of them are pretty devastating and/or risky on the scale needed or are based on limited resources. This is why demand has to drastically fall and there has to be a diversity of options expressed (the "energy mix").

When it comes to nuclear power - consider that no insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant. This means that the risk of an accident multiplied by the damage caused by an accident is much higher than for any other project in existence. And that makes sense, considering that the economic damage of thousands of square miles becoming inhabitable is quite immense and that the radioactive substances have half-lives from a few days to thousands of years - the damage thus lasts not only for a few years but for generations. All that cumulative damage would have to be considered in the calculations of what the real risk is. Even if the chance is only 0.007%, this means as it is obvious already three major accidents in just 30 years. As nuclear power makes up to now only 6% of the primary energy, the number of plants would have to be scaled up 20-fold to meet the present day energy needs. This would translate at that accident rate to about one major accident every 2 years. Lets give them the benefit of assuming that not everytime that will be a Chernobyl type, this still would mean that about 1500 square kilometers would become uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years.   :o
Another problem is fuel "cycle" - fissible uranium is limited (will run low within the century) and plutonium or MOX fuel is more dangerous and holds the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation. Fuel processing is polluting and not carbon neutral. Waste cannot yet be stored safely.
To amend all of these issues, nuclear power technology would have to be developed that is not yet proven or available. The investments for that (R&D) are great and in most instances are paid by the public. The development needed certainly exceeds the demands for development of renewable energy sources. ???
And the last of the problems I want to mention is the requirement of a strong government and a continued peace accompanied by perpetual economic growth. If the government is not strong enough, economic interests will drive companies towards building less safe (cheaper) power plants and storage facilities or skip tests and maintenance. If there is a prolonged recession similar things will happen as simply the money runs out to do proper maintenance. And of course if there is some kind of war in a nuclear country, the power plants are prime targets - for both, enemy forces and terrorists. In all these cases, also the response to an accident may be not as adequate as in the past - dont forget that Chernobyl and Fukushima are only as damaging as they are now because thousands of people have worked hard with elaborate and expensive equipment to contain these disasters. In the three cases I mentioned, that may not be available to the extent as it was. :(

Re exploding nuclear plants - there is basically no way that there would be a nuclear weapon like explosion. I am not sure what can happen in plutonium fueled reactors, but for other types it is next to impossible. However there is the possibility to hydrogen explosions (Fukushima) and burning fuel rods (Chernobyl). The explosions are not that large, but they are basically acting as "dirty bombs", spreading nuclear fuel material or aerosols out into the environment.

So why did I pick geothermal? Of course as I am a geoscientist, I like it :P - Also I happen to think that in places where it is abundant (e.g. Iceland but also large parts of the US, southern Germany and many other places), it is merely a matter of pumping hot water out of the ground and putting it back in. It is not ideal, but I have few things to complain about wetrock hydrothermal power.
I will just give some advice here and not participate in polls as I am involved with development of a sister clan of this one here which was founded independently. I believe however, we are one clan and we should stick together!

Irtaviš Ačankif

#51
Are geothermal power plants insured by insurance companies? Power plants, whatever type they are, have big risks because they are expensive.

By the way, there are TWO major accidents. Three Mile Island was simply a big hype-up. The environment was not affected, and go move there - there's no radiation left, since NO RADIATION LEAKED OUT!

Another by the way, is me the only person who is thinking of putting nuclear power plants on uninhabited atolls? Or maybe underground or in the middle of deserts, so the land made uninhabitable wouldn't be inhabitable before anyway.
Previously Ithisa Kīranem, Uniltìrantokx te Skxawng.

Name from my Sakaš conlang, from Sakasul Ältäbisäl Acarankïp

"First name" is Ačankif, not Eltabiš! In Na'vi, Atsankip.

auroraglacialis

That is why I calculated the risk of future accidents of that magnitude as Chernobyl at only 50% of what we experienced in the past 30 years. If you like, divide it again by 2, this still means a major accident every 4 years. And maybe add that newer plants may be another 50% reduction, then it is 8 years (though there is no reliable data yet on the risk in newer plants). So one can start asking - What frequency of such events do we accept? Especially regarding the timeframe these events impact the future.

Geothermal plants can have an insurance. For example here: http://www.gothaer.de/de/zg/gk/gk_p/erneuerbareenergien/geothermie/pue_geothermie/geothermie-versicherungen.htm (in german!) - it includes risks of damage of the plant as well as environmental impact insurance.

Placing nuclear plants in deserts or on atolls would be a partial solution with additional problems. For once, they would face an energy transport problem - one of the arguments critics of solar power often apply. Bringing the energy from atolls to the continents would mean a massive loss in efficiency. Also if something goes wrong, the smoke and fallout still would reach other continents and impact the ocean. In addition to that, getting help there (emergency equipment, personnell) would be much harder.

I can imagine that some possible future technologies would reduce risk or even reduce the problem of nuclear fuel being a limited resource and of course nuclear fusion is still something that has potential if it ever works - but all of this is speculation and none of that will come to an economic viability within the next 3 decades - and even after that, it is not yet proven which, if any of these technologies will be successful. But the time to do something is now...
I will just give some advice here and not participate in polls as I am involved with development of a sister clan of this one here which was founded independently. I believe however, we are one clan and we should stick together!

Tsmuktengan

I do not really follow this same line, although it may have some truth in it.

The thing is that if nuclear plants are abandoned, especially if they are widely used in some areas, this will cause a lot of harm in a lot of sectors as well as environmentally, while not helping to progress towards Nuclear fusion technology.


auroraglacialis

Well I dont think abandoning nuclear plants would be an instantaneous thing. Germany for example is taking 10 years to shut them down and that leaves enough time to build renewables in their place. The development of fusion power does not depend on widespread nuclear fission plants. It needs a lot of energy and certain products from fission reactors, so maybe one reactor for each of the handfull of research stations - but not almost 500 of these worldwide.

I can imagine that in a world that is not so full of insanity there might be a place for this. But not with an economy that looks for profit while neglecting the risks because they do not have to pay them in the end and not with a society that values fast development over safety and in which some people can make decisions over things that affect others to the negative while benefitting themselves. For example the sane and reasonable path would have been to develop this technology to a degree that is extremely safe, does not rely on limited fuel resources, has no single point of failures and has a viable and proven method to store the waste products and deal with the mining of the fuel materials. This would have to be done first, before there are 400-something commercial, privately owned and managed energy production facilities built. In that scenario, probably nuclear fission would not have been commercially viable until in a few decades from now.
I will just give some advice here and not participate in polls as I am involved with development of a sister clan of this one here which was founded independently. I believe however, we are one clan and we should stick together!

Tsmuktengan

Quote from: auroraglacialis on November 12, 2011, 07:06:24 AM
Well I dont think abandoning nuclear plants would be an instantaneous thing. Germany for example is taking 10 years to shut them down and that leaves enough time to build renewables in their place. The development of fusion power does not depend on widespread nuclear fission plants. It needs a lot of energy and certain products from fission reactors, so maybe one reactor for each of the handfull of research stations - but not almost 500 of these worldwide.

As Germany will less be able to export in Winter, France is currently worrying about some electricity shortage that could occur in some areas, while the situation can be properly handled for this year. For the future however, it will be less evident while more polluting plants (thermal plants such as oil and coal) will have to be pressed into service to compensate. It has been in the news a few days ago.


Ningey

But also keep in mind that with ever increasing prices for energy here in Germany people tend to use less electricity whenever possible. So within the time frame till 2017 that could very well compensate for a decreased level of energy production.
Furthermore, one cannot tell what might happen until then, but I would assume that the overall energy consumption is going to decrease in France as well, especially when new and less energy-consuming technologies come into play, so that should be able to stave off the effects of a decreased energy level - and on top of that, energy that doesn't have to be produced won't have an impact on the environment.


"Sawtute ke tsun nivume - fo ke kerame!"
-- Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

"There are two things that are infinite: Human stupidity and the universe. However, I'm not yet sure about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither and loses both."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Tsmuktengan

I hope you are right, it is true France offers one of the cheapest electricity prices. But people here tend to complain a lot at each price increasing and are usually very reluctant to change their habits. I only hope this will force the governments we will have for the next years to execute better politics in terms of resource consumption then. I'm thinking that the European Standard for devices and machine's electrical consumption has never been updated, and devices are now almost all rated as A+ (from a scale going from A+ to E-), slowing down the competition to make machines less greedy in terms of electricity.


Ningey

Quote from: Tsmuktengan on November 13, 2011, 07:28:46 AM
I hope you are right, it is true France offers one of the cheapest electricity prices. But people here tend to complain a lot at each price increasing and are usually very reluctant to change their habits. I only hope this will force the governments we will have for the next years to execute better politics in terms of resource consumption then. I'm thinking that the European Standard for devices and machine's electrical consumption has never been updated, and devices are now almost all rated as A+ (from a scale going from A+ to E-), slowing down the competition to make machines less greedy in terms of electricity.

I'm wondering what the price level for electricity in France would be. My electricity company (independent of the four majors) currently charges 24.2 ct/kWh - which makes it one of the less expensive. The problem here is the oligopoly consisting of the four major energy companies Vattenfall, E.ON, EnBW, and RWE. However, the most interesting part is that although they are continuously complaining about the expenses for producing energy, profits are increasing each year, and soon we will reach a point at which some people cannot afford energy any more (we could also already have passed that - I need to look up any information on that, though).

And as far as the energy consumption of electrical devices is concerned, I have already seen A+++. So there's still development going on, but I agree that an overhaul of the rating system would give developing even less power-intensive devices a boost.

Well, and for being reluctant about changing one's habits, it's true that that is a difficult feat, but when you want to get something done, you will succeed. If necessary (especially if you are annoyed with that) you could start bugging your neighbors about that problem and urge them to start saving energy - it's not only good for the environment, but also good for their budgets. And once they notice that it actually does have an effect, they are likely to attempt to save even more where possible.


"Sawtute ke tsun nivume - fo ke kerame!"
-- Neytiri te Tskaha Mo'at'ite

"There are two things that are infinite: Human stupidity and the universe. However, I'm not yet sure about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither and loses both."
-- Benjamin Franklin

auroraglacialis

If there is not a problem this year with electricity generation, why should it be in the next years. What has to happen is that energy consumption is supposed to drop because all kinds of equipment should become more efficient and there is no need to increase energy consumption unless people want to get bigger cars, bigger houses, additional computers and TVs and other machines. But the standard of living in France and Germany is rather high I think, so I think it is feasible to reduce energy demand rather than increase it. And of course there will have to be new power plants built if old ones end their runtime (like all the German nuclear plants will by 2022), but there is plenty of time to build something better. Maybe Desertec, maybe new geothermal stations - The policy makers had now about 30 years of thinking about this, I heard plans about putting solarthermal plants into Marocco in lectures I attended 20 years ago - I am sure there are plans on what is possible. Just that it will not be cheap - but hey, no one said that it will be all gold, that we can have a planet that is not polluted, have cheaper energy than ever and provide energy companies with huge profits - some of these points will suffer and as long as it is not the first one, I think it is very much justified.
I am also worried that the policy makers or companies will not make the right decisions though, thinking that it somehow makes more sense to build new coal plants now - that has to be prevented, it would be a huge step backwards.
I will just give some advice here and not participate in polls as I am involved with development of a sister clan of this one here which was founded independently. I believe however, we are one clan and we should stick together!