Percent of CO2 in our Atmosphere

[Parson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.