# Percent of CO2 in our Atmosphere



## LordOfWizards (Sep 23, 2017)

Here's a link: CO2 per year. Here's another link: Current mass/Weight of our atmosphere. 

Now some simple math: CO2 per year/Current mass of our atmosphere X 100 = Percent of our atmosphere being converted into CO2 per year. It equals 220,000 Billion tons of Carbon Dioxide/ 5.5 Quadrillion tons of atmosphere = 0.041% Doesn't sound like much? We have produced 43% more CO2 than was being produced in the pre-industrial era. 

Quote: Currently about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans and remains in the atmosphere. 

Excess CO2 emitted since the pre-industrial era is projected to remain in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, even after emissions stop. Even if human carbon dioxide emissions were to completely cease, atmospheric temperatures are not expected to decrease significantly for thousands of years.

These quotes come from here, but they are backed up by references on that same Wiki article.


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 23, 2017)

Don't worry. We'll just all drive Teslas and live in 6,500 square foot houses with energy saving appliances and lots of solar panels. That will make all the problems go away!


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 23, 2017)

DelActivisto said:


> Don't worry. We'll just all drive Teslas and live in 6,500 square foot houses with energy saving appliances and lots of solar panels. That will make all the problems go away!



Believe it or not, My house is currently powered by solar, and I have a Tesla 3 on order. But my house is only 3500 square feet.


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 23, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Believe it or not, My house is currently powered by solar, and I have a Tesla 3 on order. But my house is only 3500 square feet.



Oh, sweet. I'd love to get one of those Model 3's in the future. But, point being - if everyone in the world drove a Tesla and had a 3500 sq ft house, we'd still need 7 planets, according to the last treehugging article I read, anyhow. Not sure how entirely accurate that is, because certainly it's better than driving a gas guzzler around.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 23, 2017)

And there'll be even less land for those houses soon. Treehugger Article. And Science Magazine.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 25, 2017)

And you also need to ask whether all the electricity being used by your Tesla is being generated in a carbon free manner...


----------



## Ursa major (Sep 25, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> But my house is only 3500 square feet.


The houses are obviously somewhat larger in Middle Earth than they are in the UK....


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 27, 2017)

Ursa major said:


> The houses are obviously somewhat larger in Middle Earth than they are in the UK....



It really only takes up 1800 square feet, but it has a finished basement. We have a 4 Kilowatt solar system, grid tied so we make most of our own electricity, We use some of the incoming power in winter, and sell some of our outgoing power in spring and fall. The AC uses up any extra we would have in summer.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 27, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> It really only takes up 1800 square feet, but it has a finished basement. We have a 4 Kilowatt solar system, grid tied so we make most of our own electricity, We use some of the incoming power in winter, and sell some of our outgoing power in spring and fall. The AC uses up any extra we would have in summer.



Sounds great. I have two questions for you, which are related. What is the estimated payback time for the system in terms of money, and in terms of carbon dioxide saving? (Given that the gadgetry will have used considerable fuel during its manufacture, transport and installation.)

Supplementary; how do those times compare to the time the system will actually last?

Incidentally, all these considerations also apply to most commercial-scale "green" power production facilities - particularly wind and solar. That isn't even considering the need for backup power generation facilities. Solar plants are unavailable for at least 50% of the time and grossly inefficient much of the rest. Wind power is extremely unreliable even when the equipment is working. (For example, there were two days last year when the entire UK had no wind power.) And the backups are very expensive in environmental and money terms. And maintenance costs are horrific. And wind turbines kill endangered animals. And...

But never mind - solar and wind are acceptable to the fastest-growing religion of Gaia worship.

BTW, even James Lovelock has come around to believing in nukes for baseload power.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 27, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> And you also need to ask whether all the electricity being used by your Tesla is being generated in a carbon free manner...


Not only that but where the rare earth metals used in battery production are coming from and how they are extracted. If we're not careful, we'll just replace one form of ecological destruction with another. 

Rare earth elements(REE): industrial technology, smelting process-Metalpedia

Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 28, 2017)

Mirannan said:


> Sounds great. I have two questions for you, which are related. What is the estimated payback time for the system in terms of money, and in terms of carbon dioxide saving? (Given that the gadgetry will have used considerable fuel during its manufacture, transport and installation.)
> 
> Supplementary; how do those times compare to the time the system will actually last?
> 
> ...



Interesting to find so many opponents of green energy on a science oriented site. I know nothing of James Lovelock or the Gaia thing. I've read Science fiction stories about a fabled planet called Gaia where everything is paradise which seemed a bit over the top.

In the US (that's where middle Earth is ) we have hundreds of regulations on solar systems, which make the initial price tag quite high. Our system would have cost around $20,000 US dollars, but we also have government incentives which the solar companies automatically integrate, and after all the savings, this system came out to about $7500 US. The system is guaranteed (parts and labour) for 20 years. We save an average of about $100 US per month with the system so it will have paid for itself in $7500/$100 = 75 months, a little over 6 years.

My understanding is that Europe does not have all the regulations that the US has, so a system over there is cheaper to begin with (they end up costing about the same). So payback starts in the seventh year at $100/mo for my scenario.

In terms of carbon dioxide reduced, When fossil fuels burn, they take oxygen from the air, and combine it with carbon in the fuel to produce carbon dioxide, so the reaction is adding mass to the atmospheric by-product which steals oxygen and replaces it with CO2. Not only that but Coal is only about 40% efficient as compared to around 23% with solar which produces only pure electricity, and coal has lots of nasty impurities in it like mercury, Sulphur Dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, Nitrous oxides, ammonia (NH4) and trace amounts of germanium, arsenic and uranium.

Now, plants do just the opposite, they take CO2 and produce oxygen. The problem is, the plant mass on Earth cannot keep up with the recent (last 100 years or so) of new influx of CO2. Oceans also absorb some of the CO2, but again, not enough, and that process leads to ocean acidification.

Wind power can only be used as a supplementary power source if it is available at peak times when demand is high. There are alternatives that are being considered that would not require use of dangerous metals, like powering a pump into a water tower, which could then be used as hydroelectric power later on (makes the water tower into an extremely green battery).

Also: Very few people understand how a gasoline engine converts air into carbon-dioxide. When the spark plugs ignite the fuel, it takes in oxygen from the air outside. the chemical reaction looks like this: 2(C8H18 + 25 O2) → 16 CO2 + 18  H2O. In english, that means that 16 carbons and 36 hydrogens combine with 50 double oxygens to create 16 carbon dioxides and 18 water molecules. So, the C8H18 is gasoline. The 02 is oxygen from the air. When the reaction happens it is taking oxygen out of our atmosphere and trapping it in carbon-dioxide. Each gallon of gas is converted into 17 pounds of carbon-dioxide because of the added O2. Multiply that by the Earth's current volume of cars (over 900 million) and that's how much carbon dioxide petrol powered vehicles are putting into the air every day.

So a little extra fuel, and some impurities released in manufacturing Lithium batteries, and solar panels to reach a sustainable goal counterbalances all of the negatives that fossil fuels represent by a factor of thousands if not millions.

But hey, let's just ignore all of this and maybe it will go away, right?

Now some of the more well-funded green advocates paint an overly dismal picture. Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters (roughly 246 feet), but that is likely to take at least another century, and maybe two. So our generation will be fine. Our kids might start seeing some issues before they get to retire.


----------



## Parson (Sep 28, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Interesting to find so many opponents of green energy on a science oriented site.



I doubt you have found opponents of green energy. What you have found is people who do not take accepted wisdom as accepted until they understand the science behind it. I believe it is clear that none of the current technologies is going to produce the energy we need by themselves. It is going to take a combination including nuclear.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 28, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Interesting to find so many opponents of green energy on a science oriented site.


As Parson said!

And I would amplify that my concern is that we are tackling green energy in the wrong way. For example there is a huge emphasis on wind power. The attraction seems to be that wind power technology is simple, relatively cheap and easy to implement. However the construction of the turbines costs a lot of carbon and they have a relatively limited lifespan. In addition, at least in the UK, they are typically placed in wild environmentally sensitive areas where the concrete bases do significant damage to the peat soils. But more importantly they, along with solar power, require batteries as they do not generate energy 100% of the time. Now if those batteries are non chemical (like pump storage reservoirs) that's not a problem but as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread the production of chemical batteries is a fairly non environmental process.

Also, if you take my comment about where the electricity comes from for an electric car, this is not a condemnation of the concept of electric cars (I plan to get one myself as soon as I can afford it) but rather a condemnation of how we generate the electricity that we use in the car. What use is it having everyone switch to electric powered vehicles if it simply means we have to build more fossil fuel power stations to supply the additional electricity demand (and don't underestimate that level of additional demand if everyone switches to electric cars as seems likely eventually).

Now if I say the problem is that I think we're going about it the wrong way then maybe I should offer alternatives. Well I'm no environmental power engineer but if again we look at the UK, we are a relatively small island surrounded by tidal waters and those tides operate day and night good weather and bad yet we spend a tiny percentage of the money looking into harnessing that as compared to harnessing wind power. But of course harnessing tidal power is going to be a much harder and more expensive process than wind. Never mind that, if done right, it will be much better environmentally.

There are many other issues but the bottom line is that I believe it is too simplistic to simply say electricity is good. That is not always the case. At least not until (and if) we finally crack nuclear fusion power.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 28, 2017)

Also worth noting that a wind turbine has a lifespan of 20 -25 years and will then need to be replaced. Same for solar panels with a lifespan of 20 years. Then there's the problem of energy storage (when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine). There are methods on trial but these are still in their infancy.

There's also the political aspect of developed versus developing nation. It's easy for a developed nation like the UK to advocate the move away from fossil fuels but builds a lot of resentment within developing nations because they still need to rely heavily on fossil fuels. Many developed nations emissions have dropped simply because they've moved manufacturing to places like China so, although it might look like some countries are dropping their emissions, they're not, they're simply making it someone else's problem. I'm pretty sure if I was in a developing nation that was being criticised for its emissions (exacerbated by the fact that we're  manufacturing cheap goods for the complainer) I'd be pretty hacked off about it.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 28, 2017)

I am not an opponent of green energy; but I certainly am an opponent of wind and ground solar for several reasons including unreliability and terrible power density, which implies huge cost per kW and high maintenance - and need for backup power, and environmental impact of several sorts.

So: What about OTEC, tidal power, wave power, waste biomass, algae-based biofuel, biogas, heat and power schemes - all of which have been starved of funds while solar and wind have been given huge subsidies? Why aren't we burning non-metal garbage in units designed to provide power instead of wasting energy and time recycling it? Why aren't we working on safe forms of nuclear fission power such as thorium and pebble-bed? And why are billions upon billions of dollars being poured into tokamak fusion while alternative forms get nothing?

And why aren't we working properly on putting solar power plants where they belong, where there is reliable sunlight (and strong sunlight at that) 95+% of the time? Hello, SPS.

One more thing, this one aimed at opponents of fracking. Do the maths, and you find that gas produces about 35% less CO2 per kWh than other fossil fuels. And the units to use it are simpler and cheaper, and gas is a clean fuel - no radioactives and heavy metals, unlike coal.


----------



## Dave (Sep 28, 2017)

Mirannan said:


> Why aren't we burning non-metal garbage in units designed to provide power instead of wasting energy and time recycling it?


I can tell you that we are, at least, doing this, but it isn't a great fuel - it is damp, it is mostly paper, and it contains non-combustibles like broken china and mixed materials containing metal - so it is not a fuel of choice. *It also still produces CO2!* In the UK it goes to residential combined Heat & Power plants or is shipped to Holland where they burn it in Cement Works. (Why not here, you will ask. In Holland they recycle everything.) However, it isn't economical, so even that is subsidised to make it worth while to the purchaser. Very little waste goes to landfill in the UK, not just because of the landfill tax, but because there is no land left to fill in. It is much more economic to take out the recyclables, some of which are valuable and do usually have a market - the dry cardboard, the plastic milk bottles, glass, aluminium and steel. The market price of those fluctuates widely though, so one week it might be profitable, and then the next week it isn't any longer - hardly a good model on which to build a profitable business. The solution is not to produce anything that can't be recycled, or even better, to only produce things that can be reused and repaired.

I can't answer your other questions, except that people are unnaturally fearful of any kind of nuclear power and Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima only serve to confirm their fears. They also seem to prefer many, many small environmentally damaging sites like wind turbines rather than one single huge tidal barrier, which logically makes no sense but probably has a lot to do with nimby-ism. A River Severn barrier could solve all the UK power problems, although there is a case of putting all your eggs in one basket should it ever break down or even to be attacked.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 28, 2017)

Dave - Sure, burning garbage produces CO2. However, in the case of paper and cardboard the carbon has only recently been removed from the atmosphere - maybe 50 years ago, max. In the case of fossil fuels, it's six orders of magnitude more than that.

That's the good thing about deliberately created (or byproduct, such as straw) biomass. The plants it came from pulled the carbon out of the atmosphere recently, so on a hundred-year basis the net impact is zero.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 28, 2017)

Dave said:


> I can tell you that we are, at least, doing this, but it isn't a great fuel - it is damp, it is mostly paper, and it contains non-combustibles like broken china and mixed materials containing metal - so it is not a fuel of choice. *It also still produces CO2!* In the UK it goes to residential combined Heat & Power plants or is shipped to Holland where they burn it in Cement Works.



They trialled burning rubbish and tyre chippings in the local cement works here (Scotland) a few years ago. There's never anything said about it now so I suspect that it wasn't too successful.


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 28, 2017)

Mirannan said:


> I am not an opponent of green energy; but I certainly am an opponent of wind and ground solar for several reasons including unreliability and terrible power density, which implies huge cost per kW and high maintenance - and need for backup power, and environmental impact of several sorts.
> 
> So: What about OTEC, tidal power, wave power, waste biomass, algae-based biofuel, biogas, heat and power schemes - all of which have been starved of funds while solar and wind have been given huge subsidies? Why aren't we burning non-metal garbage in units designed to provide power instead of wasting energy and time recycling it? Why aren't we working on safe forms of nuclear fission power such as thorium and pebble-bed? And why are billions upon billions of dollars being poured into tokamak fusion while alternative forms get nothing?
> 
> ...



Fracking is an incredibly environmentally destructive method of extracting fuel from the planet. It poisons water supplies, frackers aren't any more likely to pay attention to mineral vs land use rights than any other oil company, and it still has to be shipped around. Not only that, but it induces earthquakes, bizarrely enough, because of the huge amount of waste water disposal required. In a world with dwindling aquifer reserves, this is not only an environmentally destructive, but also a completely unethical method of fuel extraction. But yes, it does produce less air pollution.

As for Thorium, I hear this from a lot of people who are advocates of nuclear power, but haven't necessarily done their research on the matter:

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option



> The pro-thorium lobby claim a single tonne of thorium burned in a molten salt reactor (MSR) – typically a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) – which has liquid rather than solid fuel, can produce one gigawatt of energy. A traditional pressurised water reactor (PWR) would need to burn 250 tonnes of uranium to produce the same amount of energy.
> 
> They also produce less waste, have no weapons-grade by-products, can consume legacy plutonium stockpiles and are meltdown-proof – if the hype is to be believed.
> 
> *'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable,* nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'



They are currently trying to build a fusion reactor in France, which could truly pave the way to future clean energy. But the equipment is incredibly precise, incredibly huge, and incredibly expensive, and still is largely untested.

As for nuclear energy, it's not green energy. The waste has to be stored somewhere. The must be stored underground, elaborately, and it will take hundreds if not thousands of years for the waste to become inert. In the meantime they're susceptible to accidents, vandalism, mayhem, and earthquakes. Some are even stored near fault lines.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 28, 2017)

The Severn barrier concept was abandoned due to the massive environmental impact it would have as the gluppy mud that lines the Severn would effectively backup into a huge smelly mass (it's very organic mud). However they have come up with much neater ways of using tidal power. My favourite is the artificial "lagoons" - circular damns that have turbines built into them - they generate power as the tide comes in and the lagoon fills and also as the tide goes out the lagoon drains. Simples!


----------



## Parson (Sep 28, 2017)

Dave said:


> I can't answer your other questions, except that people are unnaturally fearful of any kind of nuclear power and Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima only serve to confirm their fears. They also seem to prefer many, many small environmentally damaging sites like wind turbines rather than one single huge tidal barrier, which logically makes no sense but probably has a lot to do with nimby-ism.



Sigh! Now there is the real problem with "environmentally friendly" energy generation. Fear is reasonable in relation to at least present day nuclear generation techniques, but blocking research into newer and safer ways does not make sense. As for wind and solar it is most certainly NIMBY-ism. Here in the US we have very, very, few offshore wind farms because..... wait for it ..... rich and powerful people have seaside houses and they don't want their view spoiled with wind turbines and can effectively block any attempt to create them. Iowa leads the nation in the generation per capita of alternative energy from wind and bio fuels, but even here there is quite a bit of push back on wind turbines. (Personally, I think they look magnificent, and I imagine one less coal train running through because of them.)


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 28, 2017)

Parson said:


> Sigh! Now there is the real problem with "environmentally friendly" energy generation. Fear is reasonable in relation to at least present day nuclear generation techniques, but blocking research into newer and safer ways does not make sense. As for wind and solar it is most certainly NIMBY-ism. Here in the US we have very, very, few offshore wind farms because..... wait for it ..... rich and powerful people have seaside houses and they don't want their view spoiled with wind turbines and can effectively block any attempt to create them. Iowa leads the nation in the generation per capita of alternative energy from wind and bio fuels, but even here there is quite a bit of push back on wind turbines. (Personally, I think they look magnificent, and I imagine one less coal train running through because of them.)



I recently drove through Iowa and Illinois and Indiana on a road trip. (No offense, but that is really flat and very monotonous.) I was always pleased by the sight of wind turbines breaking my view. Tall, gleaming, white pillars of calm, quiet energy production, provided by technological innovation that place humans in greater harmony with nature. It was quite refreshing.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 29, 2017)

Okay, Sorry folks. Some of the comments early on seemed a bit contentious and dismissive. I think I can answer most of the questions that start with "Why aren't they..." (doing things that make sense). The answer: $$. They would not build wind towers that cost a minimum of 1 million $US. if they didn't know they could at least double their money over that (albeit short) 20-25 year span. Elon Musk acquired Solar City in 2016 (SolarCity was founded in 2006 by brothers Peter and Lyndon Rive based on a suggestion for a solar company concept by their cousin, Elon Musk). And in the US, Most of the solar power is currently built in the states that see roughly 300 days per year of sun. Germany leads the world in Solar power usage, and it is still only 7 percent of their total power supply. The reason Solar and Wind are in the lead right now is they are the oldest of the green technologies. As with all new technologies, there is a curve where efficiency goes up and cost goes down with time. So all of the other green alternatives (i.e. OTEC, tidal power, wave power, waste biomass, algae-based biofuel, biogas) are fairly new on the scene and funding is always sketchy when confidence in return on investment is low. What solar lacks in energy density it makes up for in extremely low sustainability maintenance. The sun puts out an average of 1367 watts per square meter, and at 23% efficiency (current technology) that is still 315 watts per square meter. In fact I would bet there's some science fiction stories that include a Dyson ring, hemisphere, that could partially surround our star and produce a million times more power than we would ever need. (Writers: please steal that idea).

I have to agree with DA that fracking is an incredibly environmentally destructive method of extracting fuel from the planet. I've researched everything DA said and i will corroborate his facts. According to this article the earthquakes are caused more by the re-injection of wastewater not only from fracking wells, by inland oil wells also. The _infamous_ Keystone-XL pipeline that Obama was holding back and Trump is giving the green light is pumping oil from Canada which is mostly extracted from "Tar Sands" where the gooey oil is bound up in sand and must be processed to extract it. The extraction process wastes thousand of tons of good water that can never be recycled due to it's long term toxicity. So the water is dumped in open pits and left to (ferment? solidify? prevent that land from ever being used again?). It was cheaper for Canada to pipe it through the US than out to it's own borders due to the terrain, etc. so again _money is the culprit_.

On biomass: A lot of trash services are now capping their sealed pits with methane vents, where the natural decomposition process of organic waste is then siphoned into natural gas and can be used to power their Rubbish haulers (Lorries I believe you call them?) .

France is not just "trying" to build a fusion reactor, they _are_ building it quote: "The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power for around twenty minutes while needing 50 megawatts to operate." The plan is to be fully operational by 2035. see here.

Prototypical Nuclear reactors are actually quite green if they are well maintained, but we all know of the disasters that occur when they are not. (1600 deaths due to radiation poisoning at Fukushima). And, there is still the issue of what to do with the radioactive waste. I recently saw a news show about the total lack of radioactive waste management here in the US. Most of it is just sitting in barrels somewhere near the facilities that produced it.

I hope I'm not just blowing _sunshine _around.


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 29, 2017)

To wit, until ITER is actually online and producing the power they claim it can produce, I will remain skeptical of it's capabilities. Hopefully something like war doesn't destroy it in the meantime, or dry funding, earthquakes, etc. Once they make it, and it proves itself, it will be the Next Bug Thing for green energy. If we ever figure out how to minimize the technology (make it smaller), it might help pave the way for interstellar travel.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 29, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Okay, Sorry folks. Some of the comments early on seemed a bit contentious and dismissive. I think I can answer most of the questions that start with "Why aren't they..." (doing things that make sense). The answer: $$. They would not build wind towers that cost a minimum of 1 million $US. if they didn't know they could at least double their money over that (albeit short) 20-25 year span. Elon Musk acquired Solar City in 2016 (SolarCity was founded in 2006 by brothers Peter and Lyndon Rive based on a suggestion for a solar company concept by their cousin, Elon Musk). And in the US, Most of the solar power is currently built in the states that see roughly 300 days per year of sun. Germany leads the world in Solar power usage, and it is still only 7 percent of their total power supply. The reason Solar and Wind are in the lead right now is they are the oldest of the green technologies. As with all new technologies, there is a curve where efficiency goes up and cost goes down with time. So all of the other green alternatives (i.e. OTEC, tidal power, wave power, waste biomass, algae-based biofuel, biogas) are fairly new on the scene and funding is always sketchy when confidence in return on investment is low. What solar lacks in energy density it makes up for in extremely low sustainability maintenance. The sun puts out an average of 1367 watts per square meter, and at 23% efficiency (current technology) that is still 315 watts per square meter. In fact I would bet there's some science fiction stories that include a Dyson ring, hemisphere, that could partially surround our star and produce a million times more power than we would ever need. (Writers: please steal that idea).
> 
> I have to agree with DA that fracking is an incredibly environmentally destructive method of extracting fuel from the planet. I've researched everything DA said and i will corroborate his facts. According to this article the earthquakes are caused more by the re-injection of wastewater not only from fracking wells, by inland oil wells also. The _infamous_ Keystone-XL pipeline that Obama was holding back and Trump is giving the green light is pumping oil from Canada which is mostly extracted from "Tar Sands" where the gooey oil is bound up in sand and must be processed to extract it. The extraction process wastes thousand of tons of good water that can never be recycled due to it's long term toxicity. So the water is dumped in open pits and left to (ferment? solidify? prevent that land from ever being used again?). It was cheaper for Canada to pipe it through the US than out to it's own borders due to the terrain, etc. so again _money is the culprit_.
> 
> ...



OTEC was first demonstrated in 1930. Tidal power not sure, but probably the 1980s and the huge barrages aren't necessary; putting turbines in tidal races produces at least some power. Wave power already demonstrated; I've seen it on TV, for pity's sake.

As for fusion, I have two objections to the current approach of which one is much more subtle than the other. Tokamak is not working yet and the best current guesstimate is that it will only ever work in enormous units - and also, it has a really big problem with radioactive waste because of the torrent of neutrons it produces. Worse than fission, in fact. And the very fact of its only being viable in gigantic units is undesirable, IMHO; there is too much concentration of power these days already.

OTOH, something like DPF (dense plasma focus) fusion would (if it works at all, and the work on it so far looks good) produce power in small units (small neighbourhood or large vehicle size) and also not produce significant radiation - because p/B11, the front-runner reaction, produces no neutrons except a very small amount from side reactions. Mr. Fusion might just be possible.

I rather like the idea of being able to tell the power company where to stick its bills. How about you?

BTW, even in Arizona that 300 days per year automatically goes down to an average of 150, for rather obvious reasons.

Finally, a fairly small change in reaction geometry for this approach leads to a fusion rocket. Not suitable for launch (the thrust wouldn't be high enough) but we wouldn't really want that anyway. Remember the Kzinti Lesson. But a working fusion drive gives us the solar system on a platter. Maybe even the nearer stars.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Sep 29, 2017)

Parson said:


> Here in the US we have very, very, few offshore wind farms because..... wait for it ..... rich and powerful people have seaside houses and they don't want their view spoiled with wind turbines and can effectively block any attempt to create them.



Which is ironic considering greenhouse theory that suggests that seafront water could easily rise 2 meters in the next 20 years with status quo.


----------



## DelActivisto (Sep 29, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Which is ironic considering greenhouse theory that suggests that seafront water could easily rise 2 meters in the next 20 years with status quo.



Don't worry about that - those rich people with their ocean front houses will just yell loudly at the ocean to obey their will and money.


----------

