USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
- Thread starter LynahFan
- Start date
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
We won't be able to live off natural gas, coal, and fission forever. There's what? 100 years of coal left in the US? Maybe 75 years of materials for fission worldwide at current consumption rates. Regardless, eventually it will become cost-effective.
Yeah, thanks. I understand said laws. It's not a straight efficiency, it's an effective efficiency.
There is a facility currently being constructed in the Mojave for $2 billion that will produce 553 MW. I would assume that this price goes down as time goes on. I'm talking 10-15 years down the line these will be quite a bit less.
A pair of 1.1-GW nuclear reactors (in an existing plant in Georgia that is expanding its operations) costs around $13 billion total. That's 2,200 MW at a cost of $13 billion. (I'm throwing this in as an aside just for reference)
We won't be able to live off natural gas, coal, and fission forever. There's what? 100 years of coal left in the US? Maybe 75 years of materials for fission worldwide at current consumption rates. Regardless, eventually it will become cost-effective.
Yeah, thanks. I understand said laws. It's not a straight efficiency, it's an effective efficiency.
There is a facility currently being constructed in the Mojave for $2 billion that will produce 553 MW. I would assume that this price goes down as time goes on. I'm talking 10-15 years down the line these will be quite a bit less.
A pair of 1.1-GW nuclear reactors (in an existing plant in Georgia that is expanding its operations) costs around $13 billion total. That's 2,200 MW at a cost of $13 billion. (I'm throwing this in as an aside just for reference)
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
A growing issue with solar plants, and particularly solar-thermal plants, is water consumption. A solar-thermal plant will actually consume more water per kwh produced that a comparable natural gas plant does. So there's some tricky balancing to be done in moving solar-thermal plants forward while ensuring that there is water for this and other uses.
Page 8 of this report shows a table comparing various power generating technologies and their water use per megawatt-hour:
http://www.azwaterinstitute.org/media/Cost%20of%20water%20and%20energy%20in%20az
A growing issue with solar plants, and particularly solar-thermal plants, is water consumption. A solar-thermal plant will actually consume more water per kwh produced that a comparable natural gas plant does. So there's some tricky balancing to be done in moving solar-thermal plants forward while ensuring that there is water for this and other uses.
Page 8 of this report shows a table comparing various power generating technologies and their water use per megawatt-hour:
http://www.azwaterinstitute.org/media/Cost%20of%20water%20and%20energy%20in%20az
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Except that assumes all solar plants use wet cooling towers. If you take a look at the NREL website (the author cites the page) it very briefly discusses wet vs. dry cooling. Dry cooling is a closed loop system where wet cooling is an open system. This would essentially reduce the 800-1,000 gal/MWh to about 100 gal/MWh.
See:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/40163.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf
Except that assumes all solar plants use wet cooling towers. If you take a look at the NREL website (the author cites the page) it very briefly discusses wet vs. dry cooling. Dry cooling is a closed loop system where wet cooling is an open system. This would essentially reduce the 800-1,000 gal/MWh to about 100 gal/MWh.
See:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/40163.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
If you click in this thread and happen to live in Boston, you might be interested in this: Cornell panel discussion on sustainable energy, June 17 at Boston Science Museum.
I would definitely go if I lived there - possibly too much Cornell rah-rah for non-alums, but all are seemingly welcome.
If you click in this thread and happen to live in Boston, you might be interested in this: Cornell panel discussion on sustainable energy, June 17 at Boston Science Museum.
I would definitely go if I lived there - possibly too much Cornell rah-rah for non-alums, but all are seemingly welcome.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Fortunately, a spill in the Gulf will never happen. It's perfectly safe.
Drill baby drill!
Fortunately, a spill in the Gulf will never happen. It's perfectly safe.
Drill baby drill!
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
The world has about 70 years worth of Uranium left: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html - however, this site mentions improved reactor technology that can actually make it last more than 2000 years. If that turns out to be the case, Uranium is a clear winner when it comes to providing energy into the future (provided, of course, we figure out what to do with the waste products).
Lastly, here's natural gas: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp - depending on methodology/group, we have somewhere between 1700-1800 trillion cubic feet of it left in the US. In 2009, the US consumed just under 23 trillion cubic feet (source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/ng_faqs.asp). Accounting for increased use into the future, I'd say there's about a 60 year supply.
Of course, it must be pointed out that estimating what's left is extremely difficult - and if anything, the estimated reserves will probably increase as more exploration takes place and technology improves.
The take-home message in all of this is that it looks like Uranium is our best bet going forward (even if we can't figure out a way to make fusion power work). Natural gas, coal, and oil - unless we can find a lot more of them that we don't know about now - are going to become prohibitively expensive in a few decades.
About 150 years worth of coal remain in the US http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves. However, this is based on what we can mine with current technology. With improved technology over the next century, we could probably extend that supply by at least a few decades.
The world has about 70 years worth of Uranium left: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html - however, this site mentions improved reactor technology that can actually make it last more than 2000 years. If that turns out to be the case, Uranium is a clear winner when it comes to providing energy into the future (provided, of course, we figure out what to do with the waste products).
Lastly, here's natural gas: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp - depending on methodology/group, we have somewhere between 1700-1800 trillion cubic feet of it left in the US. In 2009, the US consumed just under 23 trillion cubic feet (source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/ng_faqs.asp). Accounting for increased use into the future, I'd say there's about a 60 year supply.
Of course, it must be pointed out that estimating what's left is extremely difficult - and if anything, the estimated reserves will probably increase as more exploration takes place and technology improves.
The take-home message in all of this is that it looks like Uranium is our best bet going forward (even if we can't figure out a way to make fusion power work). Natural gas, coal, and oil - unless we can find a lot more of them that we don't know about now - are going to become prohibitively expensive in a few decades.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
The head of Daimler says 2015: http://green.venturebeat.com/2009/09/10/daimler-hydrogen-powered-cars-a-reality-by-2015/.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Getting stuff to run on hydrogen was never really the challenge, the challenge was (and is) getting the hydrogen as a fuel without expending massive amounts of energy to get it.
Getting stuff to run on hydrogen was never really the challenge, the challenge was (and is) getting the hydrogen as a fuel without expending massive amounts of energy to get it.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
... and the cheapest / most efficient way of producing it involves fossil fuels.
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
And safely storing and transporting it.
And safely storing and transporting it.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Preferably as a non-volatile solid...
Preferably as a non-volatile solid...
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Storing isn't that bad, now. Transporting it currently is.
One of the other problems with H2 (besides the obvious) is energy density. You think alcohol is bad, you should check H2. Not quite current battery technology bad, but still not great.
As part of the auto industry- you have to take a lot of what we say with a grain of salt. For sure, alternative fuels are more than possible, they are already on the road- millions of Flex Fuel capable, thousands of electric vehicles, thousands of natural gas AND propane cars, hundreds of H2 ICE cars, and close to a hundred H2 fuel cells.
But supply is the core problem. Of the above, only E85 is sorta, kinda available on a large scale- and I'm sure that most flex fuel vehicles are fueled by gas. Propane/CNG is generally left to the fleet guys, since they stay local, and know where to get it. H2 is VERY specialized. But it's not the auto industry's problem- they just supply the vehicles capable of running whatever you want. And they really, really do- of the 6 biggest companies, I can't think of one who is not making something that does not grab headlines.
When will the fuel supply line catch up? BP, Shell, and Exxon all made billions of dollars over the last few years, but oddly enough, struggling companies like Ford, GM, and Toyota are leading the fight toward alternate fuels. Odd how that works out.
Still- focusing on energy usage, personal transportation is only 16% of the US usage of non-renewable fuel. There are a lot of other heavy hitters out there.
(once again, the obvious challenge- if you can come up with a way to process bauxite and recycled aluminum into a useful metal, you will make billions of dollars saving energy- that's one of the most energy intensive processes in the manufacturing world)
Storing isn't that bad, now. Transporting it currently is.
One of the other problems with H2 (besides the obvious) is energy density. You think alcohol is bad, you should check H2. Not quite current battery technology bad, but still not great.
As part of the auto industry- you have to take a lot of what we say with a grain of salt. For sure, alternative fuels are more than possible, they are already on the road- millions of Flex Fuel capable, thousands of electric vehicles, thousands of natural gas AND propane cars, hundreds of H2 ICE cars, and close to a hundred H2 fuel cells.
But supply is the core problem. Of the above, only E85 is sorta, kinda available on a large scale- and I'm sure that most flex fuel vehicles are fueled by gas. Propane/CNG is generally left to the fleet guys, since they stay local, and know where to get it. H2 is VERY specialized. But it's not the auto industry's problem- they just supply the vehicles capable of running whatever you want. And they really, really do- of the 6 biggest companies, I can't think of one who is not making something that does not grab headlines.
When will the fuel supply line catch up? BP, Shell, and Exxon all made billions of dollars over the last few years, but oddly enough, struggling companies like Ford, GM, and Toyota are leading the fight toward alternate fuels. Odd how that works out.
Still- focusing on energy usage, personal transportation is only 16% of the US usage of non-renewable fuel. There are a lot of other heavy hitters out there.
(once again, the obvious challenge- if you can come up with a way to process bauxite and recycled aluminum into a useful metal, you will make billions of dollars saving energy- that's one of the most energy intensive processes in the manufacturing world)
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
New Eco-Friendly Cigarettes Kill Destructive Human Beings Over Time
New Eco-Friendly Cigarettes Kill Destructive Human Beings Over Time
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
Mr. Ranger tells us that every forest needs a fire now and then. Would you like to play a game?
Mr. Ranger tells us that every forest needs a fire now and then. Would you like to play a game?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf
Interesting article about perceived energy savings vs. actual.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf
Interesting article about perceived energy savings vs. actual.