|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 27, 2017 10:04:01 GMT
As the title says, vote only one method, and give your personal opinion on them.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 27, 2017 10:53:33 GMT
Fusion has been predicted to come online within a decade, for many decades. Not holding my breath for a quick solution.
Fission has public opinion harshly against it, because of Fukushima (which is an ongoing disaster) and similar. Thorium may remedy this, but we don't have thorium working well yet.
Fossil fuels will be extracted until they run out, but that is definitely within the century.
Solar PV currently has worse efficiency than solar thermal, and has the energy storage issue. Industrial processes require heat, and converting light to electricity and back to heat is a poor design choice. We will see solar panels on roofs everywhere, but probably not powering steel mills.
Wind is very nice, but limited. It will be used as part of the complete package, but not as the major producer. Harvesting the jet stream would be hard.
To me, the choice boils down to solar thermal or water. Water can have a big boost if we harvest the height difference of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans at Panama, but that's an enormous project, so I pick solar thermal.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Feb 27, 2017 10:54:45 GMT
Oh god seem all the voter have their own view~ (I chose hydro-electric because it is a tech that is cheap , low tech , super clean and require no additional fuel~) LOL for fossil fuel and trump~
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Feb 27, 2017 11:03:48 GMT
Fusion has been predicted to come online within a decade, for many decades. Not holding my breath for a quick solution. Fission has public opinion harshly against it, because of Fukushima (which is an ongoing disaster) and similar. Thorium may remedy this, but we don't have thorium working well yet. Fossil fuels will be extracted until they run out, but that is definitely within the century. Solar PV currently has worse efficiency than solar thermal, and has the energy storage issue. Industrial processes require heat, and converting light to electricity and back to heat is a poor design choice. We will see solar panels on roofs everywhere, but probably not powering steel mills. Wind is very nice, but limited. It will be used as part of the complete package, but not as the major producer. Harvesting the jet stream would be hard. To me, the choice boils down to solar thermal or water. Water can have a big boost if we harvest the height difference of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans at Panama, but that's an enormous project, so I pick solar thermal. Solar power plant is a bit too large for me. After all , the three gorges dam supply 22.5 GW of power by its own~ If thorium power plant come up i may choose the fissile power.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 27, 2017 11:13:13 GMT
I do respect, but for me, solar power (my choice: orbital) seems the best choice for long-term power solution.
Above, it seems that solar is the only power generation technique without moving parts, reducing complexity. Also, remember: energy is abundant in space, but matter isn't. However, solar energy certainly cannot power the entire world, so until large scale space-based solar electricity generation came into operation, it's good to relies on kinetics/nuclear fission/fusion.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 27, 2017 11:27:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Feb 27, 2017 11:29:17 GMT
Where is my hydro-electric???
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Feb 27, 2017 11:54:35 GMT
I don't see any one of those becoming the one main energy source of the XXIe Century.
As was said before, fusion has been twenty years away for fifty years. Now it is fifty years away, and will continue to be so for who knows how many more decades. I did suggest using pulsed fusion generation, but a few political and engineering difficulties with "detonate 15 Mt nuclear devices and somehow turn that into electricity" still elude me, for some reason.
Fission is making progress, with thorium / way safer molten salt reactors / waste-burning breeder reactors. Still, this industry has an enormous inertia with fission powerplants so old that fusion was still 20 years away when they were built. And if, say, the Indians take an advance in building thorium reactors, or the Chinese building molten salt reactors, other nations may be reluctant to buy them (because of rivalries or conflicts) or build their own (because of concurrence or patents). Then there's the "NUCLEAR BAD" red button on many people's minds, and unfortunately those people vote as well. And that's not even considering (uranium plants) the risks (existing or imagined) that some nation use them to camouflage a weapon program (even worse with breeder reactors, there). Still, it should remain a workhorse in many places, for both good and less good reasons. Also note that the Fukushima disaster was not only not quite as bad as presented (the Japanese government overreacted - a feat with an actual major nuclear disaster), but it happened because a few unfortunate Japanese cultural traits created the perfect counter to their (otherwise technically very competent) nuclear safety agency.
Solar photovoltaic is still immature, expensive, and actually building the solar panels creates pollution, let alone disposing of old ones. Still, constant progresses are made, maybe they will be a great solution for high-sunlight nations in the next decades. Also, it only works during the day - intermittent generation is a much, much bigger problem than advertised. Orbital photovoltaic is nice, but that's probably for a bit later, given how much access to orbit cost has to go down first.
Solar thermal is simpler, more durable, less pollution-prone and probably a better solution for large powerplants in those high-sunlight places. And it can be tuned to work h/24.
Wind kinetic is also immature. Wind generators are expensive, too big (they crush the landscape, which is bad for locals/tourism), damage the local soil (they require a big bad concrete foundation, generally in the middle of fertile lands), fragile and generally more impractical than advertised. The intermittent generation problem is even worse than solar pv, and harder to plan for to boot. However, new technologies like flying windgen could change all that, and make it great for local power for high-wind places.
Water kinetic is better and in general more constant, though building any machinery that works underwater is a challenge - sea water is a surprisingly harsh environment. Still, assuming they can be built cost-effectively, it is like hydroelectric barrages: you can't build so many of those, and certainly won't power the entire world with it, but it's often a good option where you can. Wave generators will also probably help a few coastal towns in high-latitude places.
Fossil fuel power generation will continue. hopefully it will decrease (coal powerplants are the single worst thing to ever happen to clean air), though sometimes you see some nation (to not name Germany) that build more coal powerplants in the name of ecology in order to close fission powerplants (the insanity of such move will not be pointed out there). Reserves will deplete, but more reserves will be found, so it probably won't run out in decades, maybe even more. Also, it may transition with synthetic hydrocarbons, which is a form of solar power: use photosynthesising bioreactors to produce oil.
Geothermal will continue to be nice in the few places where it can be used.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 27, 2017 11:57:52 GMT
I don't see any one of those becoming the one main energy source of the XXIe Century. As was said before, fusion has been twenty years away for fifty years. Now it is fifty years away, and will continue to be so for who knows how many more decades. I did suggest using pulsed fusion generation, but a few political and engineering difficulties with "detonate 15 Mt nuclear devices and somehow turn that into electricity" still elude me, for some reason. Fission is making progress, with thorium / way safer molten salt reactors / waste-burning breeder reactors. Still, this industry has an enormous inertia with fission powerplants so old that fusion was still 20 years away when they were built. And if, say, the Indians take an advance in building thorium reactors, or the Chinese building molten salt reactors, other nations may be reluctant to buy them (because of rivalries or conflicts) or build their own (because of concurrence or patents). Then there's the "NUCLEAR BAD" red button on many people's minds, and unfortunately those people vote as well. And that's not even considering (uranium plants) the risks (existing or imagined) that some nation use them to camouflage a weapon program (even worse with breeder reactors, there). Still, it should remain a workhorse in many places, for both good and less good reasons. Also note that the Fukushima disaster was not only not quite as bad as presented (the Japanese government overreacted - a feat with an actual major nuclear disaster), but it happened because a few unfortunate Japanese cultural traits created the perfect counter to their (otherwise technically very competent) nuclear safety agency. Solar photovoltaic is still immature, expensive, and actually building the solar panels creates pollution, let alone disposing of old ones. Still, constant progresses are made, maybe they will be a great solution for high-sunlight nations in the next decades. Also, it only works during the day - intermittent generation is a much, much bigger problem than advertised. Orbital photovoltaic is nice, but that's probably for a bit later, given how much access to orbit cost has to go down first. Solar thermal is simpler, more durable, less pollution-prone and probably a better solution for large powerplants in those high-sunlight places. And it can be tuned to work h/24. Wind kinetic is also immature. Wind generators are expensive, too big (they crush the landscape, which is bad for locals/tourism), damage the local soil (they require a big bad concrete foundation, generally in the middle of fertile lands), fragile and generally more impractical than advertised. The intermittent generation problem is even worse than solar pv, and harder to plan for to boot. However, new technologies like flying windgen could change all that, and make it great for local power for high-wind places. Water kinetic is better and in general more constant, though building any machinery that works underwater is a challenge - sea water is a surprisingly harsh environment. Still, assuming they can be built cost-effectively, it is like hydroelectric barrages: you can't build so many of those, and certainly won't power the entire world with it, but it's often a good option where you can. Wave generators will also probably help a few coastal towns in high-latitude places. Fossil fuel power generation will continue. hopefully it will decrease (coal powerplants are the single worst thing to ever happen to clean air), though sometimes you see some nation (to not name Germany) that build more coal powerplants in the name of ecology in order to close fission powerplants (the insanity of such move will not be pointed out there). Reserves will deplete, but more reserves will be found, so it probably won't run out in decades, maybe even more. Also, it may transition with synthetic hydrocarbons, which is a form of solar power: use photosynthesising bioreactors to produce oil. Geothermal will continue to be nice in the few places where it can be used. None? Then, where is your answer?
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Feb 27, 2017 12:20:50 GMT
None? Then, where is your answer? That's the point, it will be a combination, not a single dominant one.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 27, 2017 12:22:32 GMT
thorneel - Every such combination has one used more than others. Maybe not overpoweringly dominant, but dominant nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Feb 27, 2017 14:57:56 GMT
Solar Photovoltaics - depending on the use it can become the best or the second best option for power generation. Their spread is closely related to advances in electricity storage and increased efficiency of the panels in cloudy weather. However, they have some pretty strong advantages: they can power individual homes; they could be arranged to require no additional space; they require no fuel of any sorts, ecologically friendly or otherwise; their effect on landscape can be minimized. Certainly not a mean to end all industrial waste associated with energy generation by any means, but a significant reduction of it. Solar thermal - I would like to see this type of electricity generation used as rarely as possible. That's a personal prejudice. It has a place in small solar (or hybrid) water boilers that are widely used in some parts of the world. Wind kinetics - while I think that the number of turbines, their efficiency and safety will increase, I doubt they become the dominant mean of power production in the near future. The main problem is unpredictability of wind, and also there seems to be a lot of people who would rather see chimneys spouting clouds of smoke rather than these things. I also read about noise problems but this aspect is improving. Water-gravity kinetics - they pose major ecological problems and so can not be constructed in numbers enough to increase the portion of electricity they generate. Micro dams are even worse than large stations. Nuclear fission - advanced reactor designs are unlikely to shift public opinion towards nuclear fission. If a thermal explosion occurs at a reactor using thorium, there will still be enough radioactive materials in the ejected debris to irradiate a large area. U-232 (half-life 69.9 years) and U-233 (half-life 160 000 years) as well as some amount of U-235 will be ejected and some of their decay products are also highly radioactive. I.e. thorium reactors are not the Mr. Clean as some people seem to think. While I don't support the craze around fission power plants as embodiment of evil, their incidents will remain devastating. Nuclear fusion - one of our best bets going forward, in my opinion. I think the reason why we still don't have fusion reactors is the same reason we still don't have a Moon colony: there is little will for it. This article says that fusion research receives 20% of all subsidies for energy research, and energy research is 8% of all research subsidies, and I read that for decades fusion research received just enough money to prevent it from going bottom-up. I mean, how do you like this situation: By the way, pulsed nuclear fusion includes more possibilities than harvesting the energy of nuclear detonations. It also includes things like dense plasma focus. Fusion can be the best future option for powering industry. For small homes I think photovoltaics may still be the better option. I don't think fossile fuel plants will completely go away, but I sure hope their sector will diminish enough they are not that much of a problem. I also hope the same fate befalls combustion engine cars as a mean of personal transportation.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Feb 27, 2017 15:29:44 GMT
Seem that many think fusion is the way of future. But i doubt if the first commercial fusion power plant can born before our grandson. (Hey boy , the scientist told that they can build and use that bullshit when your great-grandpa was at your age~)
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 27, 2017 15:48:05 GMT
Fusion definitely is a major player of the distant future. But we need to be realistic: it is not for the 21st century. We will not have commercial fusion power any time soon, regardless of Lockheed Martin's optimism (and I wish them good luck in their endeavor).
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 27, 2017 16:10:09 GMT
Supposedly the only thing keeping fusion from being a reality is reliably containing the superheated plasma, and keeping it from destroying the reactor that surrounds it. So maybe I should vote for Fusion. It does always seem though that it's, "just around the corner" which gives a "boy who cried wolf" effect. gizmodo.com/the-real-problem-with-fusion-energy-1777994830That "fossil chemical : well we do support Trump" option is weird, not sure what politics has do with it. It was Bush that was the oilman/men, not Trump. (I just don't like politics being injected here. Unnecessarily divisive.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a difference between not punishing people for using the best current tech we have, fossil fuels, in favor of impractical but "sexy" current wind and solar, and thinking that fossil fuels are ideal or preferable. It's a job of anyone in power to be practical for today, while trying to fund research for future tech, but not punish people and companies for using the best/cheapest tech we have 2017, fossil fuels. The way the EPA is/was handling things with fossil fuels, it's as if when the internet was first being set up, and there was barely dialup, the Gov would tax and punish people for sending "snail mail" and wasting paper, instead of using a barely workable and uncommon email. When good "green" tech is there, people will gladly use it, just like with the internet.
|
|