[Uncle Skeleton]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724160209.htm

Numerous gramatical errors aside, this article makes a case I think we all know in our hearts is true: there is no free lunch. Basically it's saying that solar, hydro, wind and biodiesel all use up so much land/territory that they are unrealistic as an energy replacement at our current consumption. Only nuclear could ever work. It doesn't mention wave, but I have to believe its similar to the others because, well, there's no free lunch.

Nuclear has its problems too, even ignoring waste and safety issues, namely that uranium is a finite resource. Fusion power is perpetually 20 years away at least. What's a consumerist society to do?

[Rumor]

We still have a ways to go in developing more efficient way to harness solar energy. Personally, I think that's the way to go. Solar rays aren't something we are going to run out of anytime soon.

[nonhuman]

The United States has more than enough land to make renewable energy viable. That's really not a valid criticism at this point. In most cases, the land that is generally least desirable turns out to be the best for those alternative energy sources. Even in the most heavily populated deserts there is still tons and tons of room to put huge solar installations or wind farms. The idea that there is any sort of land scarcity is just ludicrous.

Of course the absolute best way for us to generate energy is orbital solar panels transmitting power back to Earth via microwave or some other such wireless power transmission technology. The sun provides us with more power than we could ever dream of using; the idea that it's not a viable power source is just moronic.

[Chuckit]

Except there is, in fact, free lunch. That's how life exists at all.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Except there is, in fact, free lunch. That's how life exists at all.

No, it's not free. If we don't worship Him we go to Hell.[/Debbie Downer]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Efficiency increases: Google tells me that PVs are about 16% efficient. How much more than that do you really think we're going to get? Google also says that plants are only 6.6% efficient at solar power, with a theoretical maximum of only 28%, and you know they've been working at this problem a lot longer than we have. In short, efficiency gains in solar power are not going to give anything similar to the types of order-of-magnitude advances we're used to getting from technological progress of the electronic persuasion.

Excess land: Ok, 3 points. 1, The article estimates that an area the size of Texas would be required to power the US by wind. Given that the other renewables will require the same ball-park figure, I surmise that you either dispute this figure, or you don't think this will be a problem. Which is it? 2, the US is hardly typical, nor the only country that matters. What happens when Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc try to keep up? 3, outer space? really? I certainly don't want that microwave beam passing over my property... And jeez, we're trying to _reduce_ the energy demand; sending things into outer-space (and servicing them there) doesn't seem like the best way to do that.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

at our current consumption.

That's the key statement here. What's wrong with reducing consumption? Energy efficiency measures across the board are what's needed. We could quite easily halve our energy use with very little pain. We need to learn to live on the energy that we can sustainably generate. Efficiency in generation tech will make this gradually increase.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Efficiency increases: Google tells me that PVs are about 16% efficient. How much more than that do you really think we're going to get? Google also says that plants are only 6.6% efficient at solar power, with a theoretical maximum of only 28%, and you know they've been working at this problem a lot longer than we have. In short, efficiency gains in solar power are not going to give anything similar to the types of order-of-magnitude advances we're used to getting from technological progress of the electronic persuasion.

Excess land: Ok, 3 points. 1, The article estimates that an area the size of Texas would be required to power the US by wind. Given that the other renewables will require the same ball-park figure, I surmise that you either dispute this figure, or you don't think this will be a problem. Which is it? 2, the US is hardly typical, nor the only country that matters. What happens when Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc try to keep up? 3, outer space? really? I certainly don't want that microwave beam passing over my property... And jeez, we're trying to _reduce_ the energy demand; sending things into outer-space (and servicing them there) doesn't seem like the best way to do that.

How about 42.8%?

[nonhuman]

Earlier today I saw a story about a team that had achieved something like 45% efficiency... (Ah, here it is: Team sets solar cell record actually just under 43%.) Nature, in the form of plants, routinely blasts even this major accomplishment far out of the water. I have no doubt that some day we will be able to match, or maybe even exceed, the efficiency of photosynthesis with our photovoltaics.

Ok, your points:
1. Sure, with current technology. But that's just wind. Throw in PV installations in the deserts, and tidal generators on the coasts, and the figures change. Additionally, there's no need for all those windmills to be clustered together. In fact it would be far better if they aren't, because it's always windy somewhere even if not in this one particular place at any given moment. Additionally, I don't have actual figure on this, but I imagine the US has probably enough free land to support that anyway. This country is huge and only a tiny fraction of our land is actually used. I read somewhere that if you took the entire population of the country and put everyone in Texas the population density would still only be around that of Manhattan. Clearly space is not a real problem for us. (Note: I'm not advocating forced relocation by any means, I'm just pointing out that we have nothing even remotely approaching a shortage of land, and much of that land is basically unused or used poorly.) And this doesn't even take into consideration factors such as urban wind farms on the tops of skyscrapers or buildings with photovoltaics and/or wind turbines build directly into them to make them nearly self-sufficient: something that is already happening.

2. I agree that we have to think about other countries as well, and clearly man other countries don't have nearly as much free space as we do. However as I've already pointed out, the space issue is not nearly as cut and dry as it seems. Other countries are just as capable of building urban windfarms and 'green' skyscrapers. Europe is already making massive strides in moving to alternative energy sources and considering their politics I think they're only going to continue to rapidly move along that course. Singapore and Japan have almost nothing but coastlines and could make great use of tidal generation. Also Japan, small as it may be, does still have quite a bit of land per person. Since the majority of people in Japan, as in the US, are concentrated in the urban centers the same solutions that the US could use, scaled-down of course, could also apply.

3. No, inner space. No need to go beyond Low Earth Orbit. It has been well recognized for at least 50 years that the solar power could provide us with essentially limitless energy if we just has orbital solar plants. Obviously there are cost issues involved with getting the materials into orbit, but there are all sorts of solutions to that problem that are all being explored by tons of very smart people as we speak. I don't know if we're going to see the cost/benefit ratio for orbital power generation hit a balance point any time soon, but eventually it will happen. As for how the power is transmitted back, that's another big obstacle. Microwave transmission is the method typically cited to do it, though there are probably others. I don't know enough about wireless power transmission to say what could or should be done in that regard unfortunately. However, one of those methods of reducing the cost of getting things to orbit that is being very seriously pursued and invested in at the moment is a space elevator. If we were to build such a thing (and I seriously hope that we do) it would not only probably bring the cost of taking the materials to orbit low enough to make it worthwhile, but it would also solve the power transmission problem in a rather obvious way. Yes this is all science fiction at the moment, but it's is not beyond the realm of possibility. The basic science of all these things has been worked out and well understood for decades. At this point it's basically a matter of waiting for our technology to catch up.

4. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The article estimates that an area the size of Texas would be required to power the US by wind.

Tell me again why we don't just do this? I mean, it's not like we really need Texas for anything else, is it?

[tie]

Nothing is free. Carbon isn't free. At some point (very soon) we'll be paying enormously for it.

Nuclear power won't work because there isn't enough uranium. It requires plutonium. Even then we'll need tens of thousands of gigawatt reactors (we have 400 today).

For solar with ten percent efficiency (the latest systems are at least 15 percent efficient), an area the size of Texas would suffice to power the entire earth.

[OreoCookie]

The title makes it rather clear what you think of renewable energies. You seem to forget that many countries have used `renewable energy sources' before it became `en vogue' to be green (such as Austria, for instance). These countries have merely made use of their unique geological features. You also seem to forget that going 100 % nuclear or going 100 % solar is a technical impossibility (you need different types of power plants for different types of load: base load (very cheap energy if it is operated in the sweet spot of efficiency), mid load and peak load (expensive energy, but crucial to ensure that there are neither shortages or overloads)).

Nuclear power plants are inherently unsafe, you'll eventually have a big long-term problem, even if nothing blows up.

Any single energy source cannot be a `be-all-end-all' solution for many reasons, you need an energy mix. Renewable energies such as wind power and solar power can contribute substantially to the mid load whereas water power plants can contribute to the base load.

There are many other options that haven't been covered at all: increase efficiency by multi-use plants: for example building waste incineration plants that use trash to generate electricity or a dual-use power plant which generates heat as well that can be used in cities.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

For solar with ten percent efficiency (the latest systems are at least 15 percent efficient), an area the size of Texas would suffice to power the entire earth.

Done! I say we pave Texas with photovoltaics!

[BRussell]

To think of it in terms of land required seems a bit silly. What if every building had solar panels installed on the roof. Even if they didn't generate 100% of each building's electricity needs, it would make a huge difference. And with a few energy-efficiency modifications they probably could produce 100%.

[Chuckit]

As I understand it, though, the cost and energy required to install the solar panels would be significant. The actual benefit wouldn't be realized for a long time, and that's why people aren't exactly crazy about the idea.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I understand it, though, the cost and energy required to install the solar panels would be significant. The actual benefit wouldn't be realized for a long time, and that's why people aren't exactly crazy about the idea.

The same argument can be made about oil refineries.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The same argument can be made about oil refineries.

And thus you don't see ordinary Joes sticking oil refineries on top of their houses.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And thus you don't see ordinary Joes sticking oil refineries on top of their houses.

Right. The analogy breaks down when you realize that solar panels can be broken down into roof-sized chunks and installed on houses, unlike the equivalent capacity of oil refining equipment. Still, they are expensive with a long term payback. Just like we use public money to subsidize oil refineries, we should (and often do) use it to promote solar arrays on people's roofs. I'm disappointed that this still leaves us with the question of what to do with Texas though.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I understand it, though, the cost and energy required to install the solar panels would be significant. The actual benefit wouldn't be realized for a long time, and that's why people aren't exactly crazy about the idea.

Right.

[peeb]

Any more news about the company that was going to rent solar panels to people?

[nonhuman]

You're talking about Citizenrē, right? It's more of a lease to own thing. I talked to them a while ago and have a copy of an email one of their sales reps sent me here: On the other hand � Blog Archive � Corrections

[peeb]

Yeah, that's it. What do you think about it? I'm tempted, but, on the other hand, they seem long on talk, and don't seem to have manufactured any panels yet.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yeah, that's it. What do you think about it? I'm tempted, but, on the other hand, they seem long on talk, and don't seem to have manufactured any panels yet.

I have pretty much the same feelings on them. If things work as they say they will it sounds like a pretty good deal. I did the research and it would probably cost about $40,000 for me to just install solar panels on my own, so this would definitely save a lot of money as I don't plan to stay in the home I'm currently in for more than 10 years, and could theoretically sell as early as 5 years from now which could make the whole contract thing awkward.

But the whole thing just seems somewhat pyramid-scheme-esque to me and I'm not quite sure I trust it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

note: I'm not ignoring everyone besides nonhuman, I just think that there's a lot of redundancy and most things are getting covered anyway.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Team sets solar cell record actually just under 43%.)

I'll admit, I'm surprised at that number, but I'll be more surprised if this product ever gets manufactured in large enough quantities to make a difference in the global energy market. That article doesn't even say what it's made of. If this amazing solar panel requires any materials that are rare or energy-intensive to work with, it's going to be an even worse draw on environmental resources than oil is. Cost-benefit ratios are far different for DARPA than they are for environmentalists or sustainabilityists.

Nature, in the form of plants, routinely blasts even this major accomplishment far out of the water.

I don't believe that's true. Got a link? Because my link already said the average is 6% for plants.

1. Sure, with current technology. But that's just wind. Throw in PV installations...

I don't think you're understanding the point of the article. Wind and PVs and biodiesel crops can't all take up the same land. You start with a certain amount of land, and you use up some for rapeseed and you use up some for wind-mills and you use up some for PV panels and some more for the processing plants for each of these, and soon enough you're out of land. The article's conclusion was that all these options (except for nuclear) use roughly the same large amount of land per output. You're not going to gain anything over one loser technology by swapping out small parcels with other technologies that aren't any more land-efficient.

Clearly space is not a real problem for us.

That's not clear at all. You can't just use any old land to generate power for any other part. If you take the least populous state (AK?) and try to use it to power the most populous state (CA?), it will be a miserable failure. Even if you could make a stable wave generating plant in AK (best case scenario as I see it), how would you store that power and transport it to CA? Answer, you can't. You can't judge available land with just arithmetic, even ignoring the fact that not all land is created equal.

And this doesn't even take into consideration factors such as urban wind farms on the tops of skyscrapers or buildings with photovoltaics and/or wind turbines build directly into them to make them nearly self-sufficient: something that is already happening.

I don't think it's even theoretically possible to make a building more than 2 or 3 stories self-sufficient with solar or wind. Do you have a link to support this claim?

Europe is already making massive strides in moving to alternative energy sources

They're up to what? 20% in the leading countries? You can't extrapolate the low-hanging-fruit accomplishments to, well, anything. It's going to get progressively harder and harder to increase that number, short of simply using less power, which is not really what this thread is about.

I don't know if we're going to see the cost/benefit ratio for orbital power generation hit a balance point any time soon

My guess is never. Really and truly. Space elevators go right next to fusion power and personal jet-packs and meals in pill-form as far as me holding my breath. They seem far more like someone trying to extrapolate future technology Jetsons-style than they seem like someone trying to actually think about what's probable, what with the actual laws of physics and whatnot.

Yes this is all science fiction at the moment, but it's is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Yeah, you're totally in the mindset of "I wish" not "I expect." If we're going to place bets on just the realm of possibility, we might as well include the "theory" that oil is a renewable resource, or that there are wizards among us masquerading as awkward teens and they can conjure us up some power out of thin air.

4. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power.

I'm actually not, that's just what the article said. The risks outweigh the rewards (something the article didn't address at all). If we were to build enough plants to sustain our needs, we would also be raising the odds (or I should say frequency) of a disaster above my comfort level. Plus, they're not indefinite. If we build 500 plants around the world, in 50 years we'll have 450 plants that need to be decommissioned and disposed of, something which we still aren't really any good at. To take the step of building them now before working out how to handle their EOL seems grossly irresponsible to me.

[peeb]

I'm astonished that noone is taking seriously reducing consumption.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm a little astonished that you can't see that's a differen topic.

[sek929]

According to the latest issue of Scientific American, photosythesis converts sunlight with nearly 100% efficiency to chemical energy.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

note: I'm not ignoring everyone besides nonhuman, I just think that there's a lot of redundancy and most things are getting covered anyway.

I feel important! (Or drunk... Consider this a disclaimer.)

I'll admit, I'm surprised at that number, but I'll be more surprised if this product ever gets manufactured in large enough quantities to make a difference in the global energy market. That article doesn't even say what it's made of. If this amazing solar panel requires any materials that are rare or energy-intensive to work with, it's going to be an even worse draw on environmental resources than oil is. Cost-benefit ratios are far different for DARPA than they are for environmentalists or sustainabilityists.

I've been following the growing efficiency of solar cell pretty closely, and even I was surprised by this huge leap. I don't know enough about all the relevant issues to say how likely it is that we'll see this technology reach the consumer market anytime soon (or at all), but now that we've demonstrated that it can be done I think it's safe to say that we will at least be able to do much muhc better than we're currently doing cost effectively within the next 10 years.

[quote]I don't believe that's true. Got a link? Because my link already said the average is 6% for plants.[/quote[

Yeah... I don't know where I got that from either... Did a little research and that 6% number looks about right... Um, just ignore that point of mine...

I don't think you're understanding the point of the article. Wind and PVs and biodiesel crops can't all take up the same land. You start with a certain amount of land, and you use up some for rapeseed and you use up some for wind-mills and you use up some for PV panels and some more for the processing plants for each of these, and soon enough you're out of land. The article's conclusion was that all these options (except for nuclear) use roughly the same large amount of land per output. You're not going to gain anything over one loser technology by swapping out small parcels with other technologies that aren't any more land-efficient.

That's not entirely true. The mass production of biodiesel (or other bio-fuels) still require large processing plants (there's one that's recently been build outside of DeKalb, IL, I think it's in Lee, not positive). Any large building can easily be used as a platform for PV power generation. If the building is tall enough it can also benefit greatly from having integrated wind turbines along the side (this may only be true with multiple building as in cities), or on top. So it is definitely possible for bio-fuels and wind/solar generation to overlap as far as land usage goes.

[quote]That's not clear at all. You can't just use any old land to generate power for any other part. If you take the least populous state (AK?) and try to use it to power the most populous state (CA?), it will be a miserable failure. Even if you could make a stable wave-generating plant in AK (best case scenario as I see it), how would you store that power and transport it to CA? Answer, you can't. You can't judge available land with just arithmetic, even ignoring the fact that not all land is created equal.[quote]

That's true. However, consider how much desert the US has. Pretty much all of the Southwest makes for fantastic siting of solar generation plants. Not to mention proposals such as the solar tower they're planning to build in the Australian outback (basically, they use the heat of the desert to create convection currents in a giant vertical wind-sock like thing that will power wind turbines). Also, consider all the mountains we have, which also make excellent solar plant sites on their south faces and wind plants everywhere else. In general these are places that aren't very useful for residence or industry, so why not use them for power generation.

The US, in general, does a very poor job of using it's land resources efficiently. Partly this is due to 'standards of living' issues, but for the large part it's just because we have more land than we know what to do with. In an ideal world, land that makes good crop land would be used for nothing but, deserts would be used for solar generation, other kinds of land that are suitable for other specific uses would be used for those uses, and the rest would be for residential properties. Obviously this isn't going to happen, but I still think that it would be possible to significantly optimize our land use without disrupting current patterns or standards.

I don't think it's even theoretically possible to make a building more than 2 or 3 stories self-sufficient with solar or wind. Do you have a link to support this claim?

Here's a 300 meter tower (984 foot) that requires no external energy source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...nergy_towe.php

There are other designs as well if you search for them, but even if it can't be made completely energy independent, a skyscraper has tons and tons of surface area that can be used for photovoltaics (if it has a clear southern exposure) or wind turbines (if it doesn't).

They're up to what? 20% in the leading countries? You can't extrapolate the low-hanging-fruit accomplishments to, well, anything. It's going to get progressively harder and harder to increase that number, short of simply using less power, which is not really what this thread is about.

Agreed. But Europe has plans to continue their current trends and, from the look of things, they're either going to succeed or bankrupt themselves trying. (I'm not sure which outcome I think more likely at this point.) In the end, however, it doesn't even matter whether they manage to reach a point where all their power is renewable. The more renewable energy is used by more people, the less demand their is for non-renewable resources and so the longer they will last and the cheaper they will be.

I don't expect that we're suddenly going to have no need for oil, coal, and whatever, but the more wind, solar, tidal, and other sources of renewable energy we can use the less oil and coal we will need which is undoubtedly good for everyone in the long run.

My guess is never. Really and truly. Space elevators go right next to fusion power and personal jet-packs and meals in pill-form as far as me holding my breath. They seem far more like someone trying to extrapolate future technology Jetsons-style than they seem like someone trying to actually think about what's probable, what with the actual laws of physics and whatnot.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think we will accomplish it. I'd like it to be in our lifetimes, but I certainly wouldn't say I'm confident of that. None the less, I think that it will happen some day. Either that or some even more efficient alternative will be discovered.

Of course fusion power is already a reality and already provides more power than we're going to need in the foreseeable future: the sun.

Yeah, you're totally in the mindset of "I wish" not "I expect." If we're going to place bets on just the realm of possibility, we might as well include the "theory" that oil is a renewable resource, or that there are wizards among us masquerading as awkward teens and they can conjure us up some power out of thin air.

Possibly you're right. But from where I'm sitting, with the understanding of the theoretical technologies that I have (which, admittedly, is not top of the line), I really do think that we'll achieve this things some day. Unfortunately this is just one of those things where we'll have to just wait and see.

I'm actually not, that's just what the article said. The risks outweigh the rewards (something the article didn't address at all). If we were to build enough plants to sustain our needs, we would also be raising the odds (or I should say frequency) of a disaster above my comfort level. Plus, they're not indefinite. If we build 500 plants around the world, in 50 years we'll have 450 plants that need to be decommissioned and disposed of, something which we still aren't really any good at. To take the step of building them now before working out how to handle their EOL seems grossly irresponsible to me.

There are definitely massive risks to nuclear power, but modern nuclear plants (of which very few, if any, have ever been built because environmentalists have forced us to only use the old, out-dated ones we already have) are pretty damned safe. With the technology we have now, we could build nuclear power plants that are pretty damned safe. Consider that pretty much all the submarines out there are running nuclear power plants non-stop with people living no more than 100 meters away from the reaction chamber. Sure the military probably has a higher acceptable risk factor than the general public, but you have to admit that nuclear technology has advanced significantly since the majority of plants were built 20-30 years ago.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm a little astonished that you can't see that's a differen topic.

You really think so? In looking at whether a particular generation method is necessary, surely you have to look at whether you can reduce demand? Power utilities certainly examine demand reduction in the same context as new power production.

Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin - it doesn't make sense to separate them. Call up any respectable solar contractor, and the first thing they will ask you is 'have you maxed out the insulation you can install?'

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You really think so? In looking at whether a particular generation method is necessary, surely you have to look at whether you can reduce demand? Power utilities certainly examine demand reduction in the same context as new power production.

Supply and demand are two sides of the same coin - it doesn't make sense to separate them. Call up any respectable solar contractor, and the first thing they will ask you is 'have you maxed out the insulation you can install?'

Agreed. We're (humanity in general, but mostly in the US and other 'Western' (I really hate that term) societies, extremely inefficient about the way we use the power we already have. Little things like turning off lights, only running the airconditioner when you're at home (or maybe having at timer so it pre-cools your home as you're coming back from the office) and even just using compact fluorescents instead of incandescent or halogen lights would lead to an extremely massive reduction in energy use without, in any noticeable way, impacting our way of life. Any serious plan for increasing our energy independence, or reducing costs, or whatever needs to look at how we can reduce our usage.

[Meneldil]

Yeah, we need to get past the Chernobyl mindset. Technology has advanced quite a bit since that place was built.

Pebble bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a good overview of one modern reactor design that seems particularly promising, sadly being stalled in some areas by environmentalists. Still need to work on waste disposal, but from what I've read and heard Yucca Mountain is generally considered a good long term solution by many scientists. (If anyone runs across the article on designing glyphs so people don't dig there in 10,000 years, let me know, have been looking for that)

We should be aiming for a mix of things, and not just electricity. Something I've never noticed in the US (though I didn't spend much time in the southwest, maybe they're used there?) are solar water heaters commonly installed on roofs across central China.

Solar hot water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having done roofing work in high school, I suspect these could be useful for almost 6 months even in Iowa, to say nothing of Texas, Arizona, etc. Just run it in as a supplement to the water heater and I imagine the gas savings over ten years would be quite high.

In short, I think we should get cracking on the nuclear plants, yes we'll run out of fuel at some point, but in 50 years solar in various forms will hopefully be more viable (cleaner, more efficient production of cells, maybe we'll have figured a good way to beam down power from orbit, etc) and maybe we'll have gotten fusion working. Even if we do run out here, there's always the possibility of mining uranium from moon/whatever, don't know if that's feasible but at least it's a possibility, unlike oil.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There are definitely massive risks to nuclear power, but modern nuclear plants (of which very few, if any, have ever been built because environmentalists have forced us to only use the old, out-dated ones we already have) are pretty damned safe. With the technology we have now, we could build nuclear power plants that are pretty damned safe. Consider that pretty much all the submarines out there are running nuclear power plants non-stop with people living no more than 100 meters away from the reaction chamber. Sure the military probably has a higher acceptable risk factor than the general public, but you have to admit that nuclear technology has advanced significantly since the majority of plants were built 20-30 years ago.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm astonished that noone is taking seriously reducing consumption.

Because that's a downward spiral leading back to the stone age.

[tie]

peeb, the problem is not just our consumption, but that of all the developing world. You can't turn on lightbulbs in a developing country by reducing consumption.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because that's a downward spiral leading back to the stone age.

It isn't if the way we reduce consumption is by doing the same things we're currently doing more efficiently...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tie 

peeb, the problem is not just our consumption, but that of all the developing world. You can't turn on lightbulbs in a developing country by reducing consumption.

That has nothing to do with anything. Sure we should work on improving things in developing countries. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it's up to us to shoulder some of the burden too.

If we reduce our consumption that still has some benefit, even if other people don't...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Look, these are two different topics (like I said). Reducing waste is great, but it doesn't mean you can stop worrying about generating power, and increasing power is great but it doesn't mean you can stop worrying about reducing waste. They're two different topics. If you're designing a car engine, you don't abandon work on the wheels, and if you're designing a car's wheels, you don't abandon work on the engine. You need both. But when you sit down to work on the engine, you don't say "why are we even thinking about this, we should be working on the wheels!" That's just stupid.

If you let yourself get distracted by the other one each time you sit down to think about the first, you get nowhere. This topic is about power generation. Deal with it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It isn't if the way we reduce consumption is by doing the same things we're currently doing more efficiently...

Yeah, it does. Our society is all about progress. If we buy in to a system that only barely supports our current needs at extremely increased efficiencies, it doesn't allow any progress to tomorrow's new toys. People won't accept that, they won't accept being locked in to today's standard of living indefinitely. Today's consumption at today's efficiency leaves plenty of room for optimizations of efficiency, and also plenty of room for standard of living advances (including the developing world), and the two can balance each other out.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, it does. Our society is all about progress. If we buy in to a system that only barely supports our current needs at extremely increased efficiencies, it doesn't allow any progress to tomorrow's new toys. People won't accept that, they won't accept being locked in to today's standard of living indefinitely. Today's consumption at today's efficiency leaves plenty of room for optimizations of efficiency, and also plenty of room for standard of living advances (including the developing world), and the two can balance each other out.

Who said anything about barely supporting our current needs? What I'm saying is that by increasing our efficiency we can still make progress without the need for ever-increasing power generation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Edit: To be a little more clear, the implication in this thread is that the various renewable energies would be "enough" if we could become more efficient than we are now, but not if we don't. This implies that they are _not_ enough, even at their theoretical maximum, to supply our current usage as it is now (as is supported in the article in the OP), and _only_ enough if we make advances in efficiency. What you just said is true, _if_ our efficiency gains are faster than our new uses for power, such as new toys or more of the old toys (toys including things people increasingly think of as utilities, such as cell phones and in-car DVD players). You may think this is true, but I'm inclined to think the reverse is true, that our increases in demand will out-pace any increases in efficiency, especially when considering the developing world. So please, make a case to support your claim.

[OreoCookie]

The article you linked to clearly shows that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't just focus on a select group of renewable energies, he also compares two power plant types (mid load vs. base load) that can't be substituted by each other.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Edit: To be a little more clear, the implication in this thread is that the various renewable energies would be "enough" if we could become more efficient than we are now, but not if we don't. This implies that they are _not_ enough, even at their theoretical maximum, to supply our current usage as it is now (as is supported in the article in the OP), and _only_ enough if we make advances in efficiency. What you just said is true, _if_ our efficiency gains are faster than our new uses for power, such as new toys or more of the old toys (toys including things people increasingly think of as utilities, such as cell phones and in-car DVD players). You may think this is true, but I'm inclined to think the reverse is true, that our increases in demand will out-pace any increases in efficiency, especially when considering the developing world. So please, make a case to support your claim.

Look, the bottom line is that we have to live within our means. Fossil fuels are our trust fund, and we're burning through that. Renewable energy is our income, it's not enough to support the amount we want to spend. Nuclear is a faustian pact - it brings problems that we simply don't know how to deal with. To me, the obvious thing is to learn to live within our means. It's perfectly possible, people just can't be bothered. Cars could easily be a lot more efficient, as could homes. We just have to decide to live within our means, if we don't, sooner or later the planet will foreclose on us.

[Chuckit]

Actually, we do know how to deal with the problems of nuclear power. We have been doing so for quite a while now.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, we do know how to deal with the problems of nuclear power. We have been doing so for quite a while now.

No, we really don't. Nuclear power generates very toxic material that we don't know how to deal with. It essentially doesn't go away in human time spans, and we don't know what to do with the stuff we have, let alone much more of it.

[peeb]

If this thread was titled "My income sucks, credit cards are the only way to maintain my current spending" I think we would all know what advice to give.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If this thread was titled "My income sucks, credit cards are the only way to maintain my current spending" I think we would all know what advice to give.

"Go to college and get a better job, you damn lazy hippy"?

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, we really don't. Nuclear power generates very toxic material that we don't know how to deal with. It essentially doesn't go away in human time spans, and we don't know what to do with the stuff we have, let alone much more of it.

Store it up for a while and when you have a reasonable amount, shoot it all into the mother****ing sun. Stuff it way underground. There's all sorts of things you can do with it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, it does. Our society is all about progress. If we buy in to a system that only barely supports our current needs at extremely increased efficiencies, it doesn't allow any progress to tomorrow's new toys. People won't accept that, they won't accept being locked in to today's standard of living indefinitely. Today's consumption at today's efficiency leaves plenty of room for optimizations of efficiency, and also plenty of room for standard of living advances (including the developing world), and the two can balance each other out.

Aside from your rather naive idea of 'progress', the idea that what 'people will accept' has anything to do with the realities of the amount of energy that we are able to produce without causing catastrophic damage to the planet is kind of ridiculous.
It's like saying 'people won't stop maxing out their credit cards. They simply won't.' Well, sooner or later they will. The only question is whether they will do it in a planned way, or as a result of their being arrested for non-payment of debts.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Store it up for a while and when you have a reasonable amount, shoot it all into the mother****ing sun. Stuff it way underground. There's all sorts of things you can do with it.

I assume you were joking, and that you agree that we have no idea what to do with it. Even at current production levels the world produces about 12,000 MT of HLW per year. Aside from the risks of an explosion in or near atmosphere, the cost would be (excuse me) astronomical.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I assume you were joking, and that you agree that we have no idea what to do with it. Even at current production levels the world produces about 12,000 MT of HLW per year. Aside from the risks of an explosion in or near atmosphere, the cost would be (excuse me) astronomical.

So would the cost of going back to the Stone Age (either literally or by killing most of the world's population so they can't consume any more), but you're all in favor of that. Seems like handling waste disposal is a better place to improve our efficiency.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So would the cost of going back to the Stone Age (either literally or by killing most of the world's population so they can't consume any more), but you're all in favor of that. Seems like handling waste disposal is a better place to improve our efficiency.

That's just a myth. You can increase energy efficiency and decrease energy and water consumption without decreasing the standard of living.

[Chuckit]

It's also a myth that there's just absolutely no possible way nuclear power could ever be done.

It is not, however, a myth that we can't increase our efficiency enough without greatly impeding society. As far as I can tell, there really is no way humanity can cut our spending enough to eliminate our debt, to use peeb's metaphor. If you know a way, I'd be interested to hear.