A top to bottom look at green energy

agesilaus wrote:
Solar and wind both have the same problem. The sun doesn't shine 24 hrs/day and the wind doesn't blow 24 X 7. There is no practical storage method in soght. Battery storage is very very expensive, I saw an estimate of Trillions to finance a battery storage system of large enough capacity. Plus there just is not enough Lithium or Lead available to build the required batteries.

As you pointed out, batteries aren't a good choice for grid scale energy storage, but there are many more suitable options, and research continues to make them cheaper and more viable.

So you want to end air pollution build lots of nuke plants and hope for fusion power. Fusion plants by the way would be intensely radioactive after running for awhile. The fusion process produces lots of neutrons which would activate the plant structure.

Despite promising research, full grid scale Fusion reactors are still decades away, and as you point out still face the problem of disposing radioactive materials from the plant itself.

Solar intermittent and it has major waste disposal expenses.

If you're going to look at waste disposal, don't forget to include it for nuclear reactors too.

Plus a gigawatt sized plant takes up square miles of land compared to 100 acres for a GW fossil or nuke plant.

The advantage of solar is that it's distributed -- install solar on every house in the USA and you've provided half the USA's demand for power. The other half can go on otherwise undesirable land.

It also kills tens of thousands of birds.

solar kills comparatively few birds -- wind kills more but still a fraction of the millions killed by existing power sources (coal is the worst). But all of that pales in comparison to the billions of birds killed by domestic cats each year.

Nuke causes loud and irrational NIMBY battles.

There are both rational and irrational reasons to oppose nuclear, but the fact remains that it's going to be politically untenable for the next few decades, except perhaps some of the new small ~50 megawatt scale reactor designs that are coming out.

I hate the term green power. Some forms of power generation produce less pollution than others. Moving to natural gas in the interim is an improvement over coal.

The wind power and bird kill thing is a myth. The Brits have replaced much of their coal power with wind.

Ice cars and EV's both are made out of aluminum, steel, plastic etc. Is there more mining involved in an ICE than an EV?

All forms of transportation pollute. Vehicles without tailpipes contribute less to air pollution and poor air quality then vehicles with tail pipes. Important in big cities.

Local solar generation will play a significant role in powering vehicles. The average commute takes 6- 8 KW in an EV. Daytime charging with covered solar parking areas can look after significant amounts of the power needed to power EV's.

The resistance to EV's will fade away as more people test drive them.

I don't believe there is a real need to legislate light cars and trucks off the market...even though it is happening all over the world. In 20 years, no one is going to want a clunky stinky high maintenance vehicle that can't be fueled at home.

In 20 years there will be a lot less gas stations in the world. Every single day there are about 3000 new vehicles hitting the road without gas tanks. That will be 6000 a day in two years...and so on and so on.

All the above JMHO.

Cheers.

Tesla batery materials are evolving geting more eficient more powerful lower in costs and fully recyclable.
And no there arent any poor slave labor kids minin for these metals


https://eepower.com/new-industry-products/teslas-4680-a-cobalt-free-silicon-battery-solution/

I dont think we can go full green energy anytime soon,bc airplanes for example will need FF for long time yet

However for shorter cross country trip electric high speed trains would do better,especialy for people who dont like to fly

But then we would have to hire chinese or Japanese to build it as our leaders dont seem to know how.

China high speed railways

https://youtu.be/aXo7wi488Eo

Where do they get power to run,,hydroelectric,wind,solar,etc and now

China already leads in renewable energy

https://youtu.be/Lvem_WvLiDU

How can they acomplish so much in such short time

China is run by engineers and well educated scientists,financial experts,not by some washed out tv personality science denier.

https://youtu.be/A3SbhDZtFsk

China is investing in infrastructure,roads,bridges,housing creating jobs for everyone and not wastin money on military no doubt helps.

https://youtu.be/TbyBKTqnkdo

Most all of our known energy sources came/comes from the Sun.

Crude is plant or organic based, which is just another form of stored Sun energy that took millions of years to create. We are burning through it in just decades to a century or so.

Wind is Sun based, as our weather is all based on solar heating/cooling to form low/high pressure areas where they push/pull air. Add in our planets rotation, which moves the air.

Nuclear is questionable whether Sun based and have been in many discussions over the decades. Nuclear is the highest density form of potential energy, but has great down sides...or better stated...many more down sides.

All are manageable with the big question...at what cost? On that, time factors that cost.

“Clean energy” or “zero pollution” are more marketing than substantive. Go back into their origins and you will find crude at the source...as we know it today.

Science continues to marvel.

Example is hydrogen. Pure hydrogen used to take more energy to produce than it provides in the form of usable energy....but...that has been chipped at for decades and decades. Current best practice is photonics to split hydrogen and oxygen atoms with claimed 99% or higher efficiency.

Then compressing that now very economical gaseous hydrogen into a liquid then consumes much energy. That is where one of my research teams were working on while in SunLabs

We invented a solid state gas to liquid compressor with no moving parts....except for a one way valve (automotive AC and about $1.99) so it would pump.

But...all that then requires electrical power, but now much into the noise level.

Sizing for what society is accustomed to will be another issue, but solvable. Society will just have to change.

Batteries will become obsolete except for the very small applications. To be replaced by containers holding liquid hydrogen.

The diamond compression to create electricity is of interest, but currently only in the very, very low outage & power ranges. More scientific curiosity in the lab, but that is how most all things start out as...an idea...then a prototype or proof of concept model.

Society will NOT willing move in mass unless catastrophe or mandated by government.

Then everything in the food chain to the final usage or application of power.

EVERYTHING we produce/manufacture/service/etc currently has crude base materials, processes, etc.

The change will need to happen EVERYWHERE at almost the same time. Piece meal won’t cut it an too many 2 steps forward with 3-4 steps backwards. Leading to frustration of society and that will lead to distrust in the ‘new’ processes & products mandated by the government

Current IP for EV’s only a stop gap and is best practices of the moment.

Shinerbock has been saying fuel cell the way to go and I’ve concurred often, but that hasn’t caught on here...but current technology isn’t there yet. Generation of liquid hydrogen, transportation, storage, delivery, etc will continue to be a huge issue, but that will be overcome once ‘we have to’

Wind generators, solar panels, etc all have crude in it’s food chain big time. Just invisible to most.

The scientists say to burn less carbon fuels. I believe solar and wind is the best method to capture the energy we need. I am not calling for dismantling the existing nukes but I think the waste needs a better solution before more is built. Reducing the need for Cobalt is in the works. Cutting costs including using organic material is also in process. I think economics has us on the correct path at this time. Progress seems slow and it will be a long multigenerational journey. We will learn and improve as we go same as we have for all of modern history.

There is one base loaded source of 'green energy' assuming you mean nonpolluting. And that is nuclear power. Yes the fuel must be disposed of the the spent fuel from these plants can be reprocessed and the volume reduced greatly. The remaining material can be safely buried in geologic structures. The volume is tiny compared to a fossil fuel plant or even wind and solar plants. Those windmills have to be disposed of for example and no one wants them. The blades are gigantic as you know if you ever passed some on the road. Solar plants aren't much better. another one went under in Nevada a week or so ago.

Solar and wind both have the same problem. The sun doesn't shine 24 hrs/day and the wind doesn't blow 24 X 7. There is no practical storage method in sight. Battery storage is very very expensive, I saw an estimate of Trillions to finance a battery storage system of large enough capacity. Plus there just is not enough Lithium or Lead available to build the required batteries.

Solar could work if you put the collectors in orbit and beamed the power down via microwaves. That would be extremely pricey. And also the definition of death ray seams to fit a multi-gigawatt microwave beam. The antenna farms would be very large as well. I doubt the Russians would be happy if we put something like that in orbit nor would we like it if they did or the Chinese.

Wind is just plain not reliable, not even in Wyoming. I paid attention to wind farms when we drove thru a lot of them this summer and did not see one that didn't have at least 10-20 inoperative wind mills I've read that so many of the wind power equipment manufacturers have good bankrupt that getting repair parts can be impossible. When they were install the claim was that they would have 20 or 30 years of working life, instead they are being torn down after 10 years or less. And of course the wind only blows whn it wants to, and often that does not include the hottest parts of the summer which are often windless. I believe wind farms are usually around 20% available, which means they put power in the grid one hour in five on average.

So you want to end air pollution build lots of nuke plants and hope for fusion power. Fusion plants by the way would be intensely radioactive after running for awhile. The fusion process produces lots of neutrons which would activate the plant structure.

So the moral to all this is: TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Fossil fuels are dirty and produce large volumes of waste
Solar intermittent and it has major waste disposal expenses. Plus a gigawatt sized plant takes up square miles of land compared to 100 acres for a GW fossil or nuke plant. It also kills tens of thousands of birds.
Wind is the same as solar. Takes a lot of land, kills birds and bats and it is very difficult to get rid of a 200 foot long plastic wind mill part.
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuel and is low density and has major storage and transport problems
Batteries are very expensive on the utility scale and there isn't enough raw material to make all we would need.
Nuke causes loud and irrational NIMBY battles.

Oh ya, I watched a Praegar U video called "unobtainium" the other day. It outlined the percentage of maximum output of wind and solar, actually pretty pathetic and then all the energy expended in mining the required resources not to mention, like you said the infrastructure required. Lets shoot ourselves in the foot to kill the ant under our shoe.