Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word describing someone having hope is hopeful .
Yes thats still not the same as a A realist, A pessimist or AN optimist.
“Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
81–86 of 86 posts
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limits to various forms of energy are well-known. It's a bit more than I can describe in an HN comment, though Tom "Do the Math" Murphy has a good guide, index to his posts here: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/ Heinberg himself has written of them in earlier books and articles. Essentially humans have access to the fluxes of solar, geothermal, and tidal energy, and the stores of fossil fuels, nuclear fissi…
"wave power (the latter is effectively nil) " ~30 terawatts, about double the electrical consumption of the whole planet, is effectively nil? " [tidal is] slightly more viable than wave energy" Why do you say this?
Distributed over the length of all coastlines of all continents. The per-linear-meter power density is extraordinarily low. Wave power doesn't concentrate. Capital is extraordinarily expensive, and salt-water environments are hell on materials.
See Tom Murphy's analysis for more: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/the-motion-of-the-ocean/
(He also mentions currents and thermal gradient power from the ocean. OTEC might be more viable IMO.)
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#83Given how long these problems have been staring us in the face, it's truly hard not to be totally pessimistic about the future. If we haven't changed yet, do we even have the capacity to do so?
Problems are solved by optimists. Dont be pessimistic, we will solve problems as they arise. If you are truly worries about your future the best way is to get into the trenches.
What's your data backing this hypothesis, by the way?
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need high iteration speed? Nuclear is pretty safe as it is. Chernobyl was using reactors that were obsolete in 1986. Fukushima was pretty fucked up in having the generators below sea level, but the result of that was 6 people got cancer.
Fukushima may not have caused much loss of life, but you also need to consider the economic damage. Natural disasters, terrorism, and unanticipated design flaws (generators below sea level) are important considerations. Those add costs that aren't always accounted for.
Yes, exactly, consider the economic damage of NOT building nuclear plants and allowing the climate to continue to change! Surely that's a higher economic damage than that caused by Fukushima+Chernobyl.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word describing someone having hope is hopeful .
Yes thats still not the same as a A realist, A pessimist or AN optimist.
And the point is that you need multiple factors.
Realism to correctly assess the situation and dynamics.
Hope and/or perseverence to follow those through to their potential.
Again: optimism denies reality. It gets you into trouble eventually, even if it can glide over some rough spots. At best, optimism can limit self-sabotage or inhibition. It does nothing to change the Universe itself.
Re: “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
"wave power (the latter is effectively nil) " ~30 terawatts, about double the electrical consumption of the whole planet, is effectively nil? " [tidal is] slightly more viable than wave energy" Why do you say this?
Distributed over the length of all coastlines of all continents. The per-linear-meter power density is extraordinarily low. Wave power doesn't concentrate. Capital is extraordinarily expensive, and salt-water environments are hell on materials. See Tom Murphy's analysis for more: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/the-motion-of-the-ocean/ (He also mentions currents and thermal gradient power from the ocean. OTEC migh…
I read his analysis, I found it roughly to be back of the envelope math and I did not think it was authoritative especially when he uses phrases like "my crude estimate" and "my stupid calculation".
The "per-linear-meter power density" what some would call "wave energy flux" represents an order of 5x greater energy density than wind, which is roughly 10x more dense than solar. When T Murphy describes "third string solar" he highlights that a quantity of energy is lost in each conversion, yes but also the density is increased. Similar to following energy starting with biomass, fermenting to dilute alcohol, and distilling to pure ethanol. In this case there is no effort or external energy required for incident solar energy to generate a lesser amount of denser wind energy, and for wind energy to create a smaller still amount of high density wave energy. However, this quantity is still large enough that even a fraction of it converted to electricity represents an quantity of power that I strongly reject to being called "nil" or "puny".
Following a thorough analysis and R&D phase, the important metric, levelized cost of energy, relates to the quantity of material required to construct a device that interacts with a given quantity of power. Operating in a more power dense medium favors lower LCOE. There are challenges with the salt-water environment, that fact doesn't preclude the existence of industries such as trans-oceanic shipping, offshore oil and gas, navigational and observational buoys, and other such endeavors.
Personally I consider it a good thing for an energy technology to be distributed throughout the world, I think it is preferential than having the entire energy resource concentrated in one part of the world. Another benefit it offers is that its availability is decoupled from wind and solar, the waves don't stop at night, and once established continue traveling without wind.
There is no silver bullet and wave energy is no exception, there will always be a finite quantity recoverable, and a certain cost to recover it. However, to determine those specific numbers would require a herculean effort to thoroughly analyze all of the possible wave energy converter designs - which consist of a number of major of typologies, and within each topology an even greater number of specific designs and sizes, each with their own cost and performance, which also varies depending on seastate - you would need to analyze every possible device not just for power converting performance, but for an estimate of suitable materials and construction techniques, and their costs. Only then could you answer the important question, can any quantity of wave energy be economically recovered at a cost competitive with other leading renewable energy sources.