Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Sporeworks.EU Shop: Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: psilly the kid]
    #24733147 -

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:
if steel became more expencive the money would be there to innovate:shrug:


A lot of places really took a hit when the steel industry took a plunge. Gary, Indiana comes to mind. All of those steel workers just lost their jobs overnight, and to this day it's a shitty, shitty place to live.

A huge percentage of the city is abandoned.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: psilly the kid]
    #24733155 -

psilly the kid said:
Thorium reactor are what we need to be building


It (specifically thorium molten salt reactors, that is) is a relevant technology in a context of renewable, intermittent sources such as solar and wind, because of two reasons: (1) thorium MSR's are efficient in the sense that they allow for a very high burn up of nuclear fuel, as opposed to existing uranium reactors which burn up maybe 1-2% of the fuel they are being fed, leaving a vast amount that needs to be reprocessed. (2) A thorium MSR can be run as a load follower to a large extent, making it respond in terms of power output to fluctuations in other sources. There's quite a bit of research and development being done, partly in China who has committed a decent amount of resources to resurrecting this technology, but also in the US and Europe. In Europe, projects are active as we speak to qualify materials for thorium MSR's -although it's no secret at all as they are mostly publicly funded projects, the general public is largely unaware of this.

Nuclear fusion always seems to be about 40 years into the future - and it has been like that for a couple of decades. It just doesn't come much closer and the technology is so finicky and complex that it is still doubtful if it is a viable option at all. Maybe that other concepts except the current 'standard' of tokamak designs (which is the only concept with significant funding at the moment) have a better chance, but they are so underdeveloped that it's not even possible to judge their potential at this point.

In terms of energy and particular electricity, nuclear power is still shunned and overlooked to an extent that seems barely justifiable given the worldwide focus on reducing the dependency on fossil fuels. Nuclear could prove to be (or rather, remain) an essential ingredient of the future energy mix. China has realized this and invests in it, so odds are that a few decades down the road, we'll see Chinese nuclear energy technology being deployed all over the planet, as they will have the best and most modern technology by then, possibly followed by Russia, although Russian technology (particularly their current VVER reactor designs) mostly seem to be an intermediate solution for the short- to medium long term as it directly builds on existing PWR technology. It's unclear to me if and to what extent Russia has been investing in nuclear technology that is more future-proof - although their VVER's hold good cards to be perfectly useful for the next several decades.

As to the issue of steel: if it turns out in the long run that steel becomes more costly to produce due to (artificial) scarcity of coal or other sources of carbon/carbon monoxide (e.g. due to stricter regulations and higher costs of CO2 production), then we'll likely see steel to be replaced with other materials in a wide range of applications, leaving it to be used only where we have no other option. Bioplastics are one class of materials that we currently don't use all that much, but that have good potential to replace oil-based plastics to a very large extent, and we all know that plastics can replace steel and other metals in a wide range of applications. Our dependency on steel may prove to be substantially lower in the future than it currently is.

I'm sidestepping the issue of recycling (as opposed to downcycling, which is what currently happens the most), but my personal conviction is that recycling is primarily an issue of energy economics. We have come a very long way already when it comes to separation technology, which is what recycling ultimately revolves around. The main reason it's not being employed on a larger scale is simple economics and particularly the costs of the large amounts of energy needed for reprocessing of materials. Given more abundant and energy with lower (relative) costs, combined with (artificial) scarcity of freshly mined materials, there is a vast and currently unused potential for recycling and reprocessing.

The ingredients for transforming the materials and energy chains are there, and so are the reasons and socio-economic mechanisms to do so. The real challenge lies in managing the transformation in such a way that as little upheaval and war is caused as possible. It's evident that a 'sustainable' transition will cause huge shifts in geopolitical power and that is the major risk we are currently facing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: XUL] * 2
    #24733315 -

XUL said:
Ahab McBathsalts said:
trees said:
We will run out of non renewable in 100 or so years, nuclear isn't so feasible cause the plants cost way too much. Solar and wind and water will need to be worked on to proper efficiency while we deplete non renewables


Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf




Can they work continuously though?

The only renewable resource that is a constant energy source, is nuclear.

Ontario phased out coal. They are now around 62% nuclear, 35% hydro, and then wind/solar.


Hydro is pretty continuous.

Continuously as in able to match peak production with peak demand for wind and solar? No.

But they have this great way to store energy that is super low tech and about 65% efficient. You can pump water up a hill when you have excess power on the grid, and then let it come down and spin a water turbine to reclaim a good chunk of that power.

They were also working on a way in Ontario to pump air into a big balloon under the great Lakes. It had about the same efficiency.

No futuristic batteries, no Elon musk. You could implement something like this almost immediately. This system is still competitive


--------------------
I was pessimistic in my youth. Now I can just follow the Toronto Raptors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: Ole Field Trashe]
    #24733558 -

Thorium reactors have many drawbacks much like conventional ones which is why you dont see them all over the place. Yes they have certain technical advantages but produce radiation which eventually destroys the containment vessels etc same as conventional nukes. They have to be decommissioned eventually and we have no place to put the hot stuff

Steel can be made without coke, but its the most readily available and cheapest reducing agent. We will run out of iron ore before we run out of carbon, no shortage there.

Solar, wind, geothermal, etc are all much more expensive. No one wants their power bill to triple so there is lots of resistance to that.


--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)

Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: Stonehenge]
    #24733572 -

Many places in the country have partly moved away from fossil fuels and largely went to natural gas or a combination of renewable energies. Afaik there's been no mad raving complaints of more expensive electric bills.


Perhaps it may be because that cost is being taken care of by the government atm, via grants and tax cuts, and isn't passed on to the customer.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: Stonehenge]
    #24733596 -

Stonehenge said:
Solar, wind, geothermal, etc are all much more expensive. No one wants their power bill to triple so there is lots of resistance to that.


On shore wind is generally the cheapest power source and is currently being bid for projects at about $0.065 a KwH.

The number of wind turbines being built is staggering.



US Wind Power Generation Capacity in the USA

In Megawatts.

Also I build wind turbines for a paycheque. This industry is flying high. Like a good sized modern turbine is about 2-3MW. 7711MW of added capacity is like 3500 Turbines erected and put into the grid in 2016.

How many thorium reactors have they built in the USA in the past 10 years?


--------------------
I was pessimistic in my youth. Now I can just follow the Toronto Raptors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24733600 -

round here people are so redic. were like 90% natty gas and people want the cleaner natural gas but try to build a pipeline that will meet the demand needed and they think its fucking standing rock ffs :facepalm: they dont even wanna put in tanks to store store gas for peak demand periods. everyones super against nuclear even tho they barely understand it n dont realize theres new technologies out. and no one wants to pay for or look at windmills or solar panels. but heaven forbid they dont have enough power ever or have to pay more for it. :facepalm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: Ole Field Trashe]
    #24733736 -

Stonehenge said:
Thorium reactors have many drawbacks much like conventional ones which is why you dont see them all over the place.


That's not the reason. When thorium technology was under development in the mid-1960s, the US disapproved further funding for the primary reason that uranium-based reactors were already widespread technology. Given the choice to fund development of breeder reactors, the US decided to go for uranium-based, sodium-cooled fast breeder technology, possibly with the implicit argument that this technology was more suitable for plutonium production. However, another argument is that Weinberg, who was the prime proponent and lobbyist for thorium technology was apparently not very pleasant to deal with, causing him to loose his footing with the US govt. From a technological viewpoint, no major technical or engineering problems were encountered with the thorium MSR that had been running for a couple of years - certainly no problems worse than those associated with uranium-based reactors.

Quote:
Yes they have certain technical advantages but produce radiation which eventually destroys the containment vessels etc same as conventional nukes.


In fact, the major issue with thorium MSR's is corrosion of reactor parts by the molten salt, usually FLiBe. The corrosion difficulties encountered were mostly due to the relatively poorly manufactured, sub-spec alloys used. Currently, testing is underway in several projects to qualify construction materials for thorium MSR's. As you probably are aware, no reactor vessel of a regular NPP has ever succumbed to or even be permanently decommissioned due to radiation damage. The hairline fracture problems encountered in some reactors are attributable to the manufacturing process of the reactor vessels, not to degradation due to radiation, which tends to be superficial.

Quote:
They have to be decommissioned eventually and we have no place to put the hot stuff


Of course decommissioning is a relevant issue. However, keep in mind that thorium MSR's generate nowhere near as much radioactive waste in their fuel cycle and the waste that is generated remains radioactive much, much shorter (although still a few centuries - still better than many millennia) than the waste of a uranium fuel cycle.

Ahab McBathsalts said:
How many thorium reactors have they built in the USA in the past 10 years?


None, obviously. See above. Your government killed the development a few decades ago and a few years ago, all the technical data were literally handed over for free to the Chinese, who have gratefully accepted it and are currently developing it further for wide-scale use. Unlike with solar and wind technology where at least some of the technological development (and the returns associated with it) happens in the West, the West has essentially given up on a technology that is likely to be used on a large scale in the future. Too bad from an economic viewpoint if you live in the west, but from a sustainability perspective, it doesn't matter who does the development, as long as it gets done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: psilly the kid]
    #24733790 -

psilly the kid said:
Thorium reactor are what we need to be building


Lol. Thorium.

Jesus is there any fake news that you people don't believe


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733795 -

Well koods, kindly explain what is fake about it. I'm all ears.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733798 -

Why are we fighting for an energy source that employs so few people (coal) while bashing an industry that employs dozens of times more people (solar and wind). Coal is dying because it's a shitty, expensive fuel. Let it die.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koraks]
    #24733801 -

koraks said:
Well koods, kindly explain what is fake about it. I'm all ears.


Where are the thorium reactors?

Thorium reactors are pseudoscience bullshit



--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733805 -

Only coal use that has actually risen is of low grade coal that couldn't formerly be processed. Coal that was literally taken by the truck load and dumped in valleys because little could be done with it at the time. Now it's pretty damn cheap just to shovel all that into trucks and drive it to one of the new plants that can process it.


Other than that coal in America already is more or less dead. A majority of the mines have gone quiet or are getting along with minimal production.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24733830 -

We've already mined the cheap coal. Now we have to shave the tops of mountains off to get to the coal.
Meanwhile we have a government that is fighting to save a couple thousand jobs while seemingly fighting an industry that employs millions simply because we have a president who is indebted to people who dream of getting back into the mines and getting diseases that will kill them 30 years early while taxpayers pay to keep them alive . Coal needs to die. The people who want to continue to work in coal just need to find a new line of work. Our whole energy economy is being held hostage by people with a 19th century mentality.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733839 -

Our neighbors put solar panels on their roof. They actually make money on electricity except in the summer when the a/c runs. They also have a Tesla that they operate with zero fuel costs.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733843 -

Oil is the bigger bastard. Only select parts of the government and certain regions are fighting for coal and that has grown quieter and quieter. They stopped strip mining here, they have in many places.

The coal they're burning now is less productive than the coal they were mining out 15 years ago, it's now oil that has a better bang for buck, better than natural gas for the time being.



The government isn't really keeping the coal industry going, even though politicians will claim so. Energy companies that already have plants built close to coal baring regions is what's keeping any amount of coal as productive as oil or tax incentivized renewable energies.

The only politicians that are really willing to dig in and fight for coal are ones that have their power or govern over places extremely dependant on coal production. And consequently are so small that it's not hard to step right the fuck over them. The Obama administration did a pretty good job of it.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: XUL]
    #24733849 -

XUL said:
Ahab McBathsalts said:
trees said:
We will run out of non renewable in 100 or so years, nuclear isn't so feasible cause the plants cost way too much. Solar and wind and water will need to be worked on to proper efficiency while we deplete non renewables


Solar and wind are already cheaper than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf




Can they work continuously though?



pumped storage, my dude.
heat storage by means of liquid sodium or some such.
awesome batteries would be nice, but we don't necessarily need them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24733851 -

Trump plans on giving the coal industry subsidies. He's so massively incompetent that it probably won't ever happen but that's what our little 3rd grader in the White House wants


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (10/24/17 01:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: koods]
    #24733873 -

I'm well aware Mr president wants to shit all over the environment but you're right I don't think it will happen. The majority of republicans that still particularly favor fossil fuels jumped ship to oil.


Considering all the man has purposed though I'm not sure coal subsidies would be the worst thing. Especially sense if the liberal parties fought it right they could tack on so many additional restrictions it would balance out any new coal subsidies. That's honestly how the government has convinced energy companies to start looking for alternatives, all the clean emissions legislation made it way more expensive to produce energy from fossil fuels.



Coal is a dinosaur and so is Trump. Most of the country has moved on, including the party that favored it.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuels: Steel [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #24733902 -

But then a good chance Trump only cares because coal company owners have "donated" to the republican party for a long time. Of people left working in the industry there's less than 25k miners and less than 75k total workers.

The only people that cry particularly loudly for coal are those few workers and the hundreds of thousands more that have been laid off from coal work or had their childhood town die from closures. :ohwell: it's unfortunate but that's how economy works and I think most people understand that.



I understand having coal available as a back up or for production of other goods like steel but there's no point in giving it additional business. It's already close to the bare bones and will be there in 5 - 10 - 15 years regardless of what the Trump administration does. I think it might take a bit longer to phase it out entirely but the honest truth is we have absolutely no need to be mining more coal, especially since we can use the piles of it sitting out already mined and blown and dumped on the sides of mountains now.


Pretty decent source of fuel reserves and there are plenty enough plants capable of producing both natural gas and coal energy.


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Sporeworks.EU Shop: Spores for European Microscopy

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* NY Times runs Peak Oil article
( 1 2 3 all )		 trendalM 5,596 49 08/23/05 11:27 AM
by trendal
* Exxon executive: stop trying to become energy independent DNKYD 1,875 17 02/10/06 02:15 AM
by Konnrade
* Is Your Phone Out of Juice? Biological fuel cell turns drinks into power Psilocybeingzz 972 2 04/03/07 01:57 PM
by Boom
* Man Fined For Using Vegetable Oil As Fuel VoidOfsPg 1,459 15 06/13/07 04:53 PM
by demiu5
* Free Energy Corporal Kielbasa 951 17 12/11/06 01:47 PM
by Jorsher
* Geologists discover world's largest fossil forest Fraggin 680 8 05/03/07 06:58 PM
by Drewwyann
* Should I renew my virus scanner? JunkFood 656 12 02/19/07 09:07 PM
by Prisoner#1
* golden road to unlimited devotion live nightkrawler 2,356 17 07/11/05 12:28 PM
by PlasticFantastic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
944 topic views. 7 members, 360 guests and 90 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.