JohnDBarrow Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 I wish mankind would have some serious Energy Master Plan for the Future if he hasn't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 36 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: I wish mankind would have some serious Energy Master Plan for the Future if he hasn't already. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that there is such a plan. It’s a great plan. The best plan you’ve ever see or heard of. A beautiful plan. How would you implement it, or find it? How would you deal with people who actively block it for their own personal self interest and avarice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fabian Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 I think energy technologies and what they can do are still in flux; the last thing we want is an inflexible plan that cannot take advantage of ongoing developments as they emerge. I think we need commitment to the goal of decarbonizing more than we need a detailed plan of how to get there; the planning is for the next few steps, not the final steps and must include support for clean energy R&D, on the basis that we can still do things better. When mainstream politics chose Doubt, Deny and Delay as response - with handing the issue to Environmentalists in "you care so much, you fix it" style - in order to NOT address it (as well as reinforce framing of the issue as driven by extremist fringe politics rather than about climate science and climate policy as about responsibility and accountability), no such plan (which likely would have had nuclear as the headline act) was possible. It is considered intolerable if any climate action or decarbonizing reduces profitability for fossil fuel investors, let alone requires any society wide reduction in spending power or actual sacrifice. Our forebears who faced great dangers and challenges with bravery and willing sacrifice would be ashamed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDBarrow Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 Everybody thought the horse and the steam locomotive was the peak of travel perfection until crude oil and internal combustion was discovered. Time to reinvent the energy wheel again. I would favor biofuels for aviation use. The first steam locomotives ran off wood, not coal or oil. Wood is a biofuel man has used since he first made a fire for camp or cooking 1000's of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: Everybody thought the horse and the steam locomotive was the peak of travel perfection until crude oil and internal combustion was discovered. Time to reinvent the energy wheel again. I would favor biofuels for aviation use. The first steam locomotives ran off wood, not coal or oil. Wood is a biofuel man has used since he first made a fire for camp or cooking 1000's of years ago. And coal has a 50% higher energy density than wood, which is a reason it was adopted. You can’t be serious, suggesting we use wood for aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 10 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: What I am looking for is for the answer to the question: How can Man best use and manage energy from this day onward into the future? If you were to have YOUR way, how would our species use and manage energy? It sounds like energy is one of those things that involve many compromises. As far as wind and solar go, can't the electricity produced from these be stored in batteries for those times the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? I made the squirrel remark to be sarcastic. Yes I think we all got that it was sarcastic. What was stupid was that your sarcasm was seemingly intended to ridicule the practicality of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Casting doubt on the viability of these has been one of your themes ever since you showed up here. A number of us have tried to set you straight about that, but it seems to be an uphill struggle. On your battery question, yes battery storage is already done commercially and I have already commented on further battery developments. Other forms of storage of intermittent energy production include hydroelectric (pumped) storage and thermal storage - a sort of battery for storing heat, using the latent heat released when a substance changes phase. Here is one example I found at random on the internet:https://sunamp.com/en-gb/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/Thermino-Brochure-Digital-Artwork_Low_Res_aad-uk-th-br-v1.pdf On your question about how we should ideally move forward, I agree with others here that a "master plan" in detail may not be a sensible approach, partly due to the vicissitudes of politics and partly because the pace and direction of invention and commercialisation, in a free-market economy, is such that any plan would be quite likely to be overtaken by developments that were not foreseen when it was devised. However the elements that a government should pursue, as vigorously as public opinion will permit, must obviously include both incentives and support for more efficient use of energy (public transport, insulation, fuel economy, waste heat re-use) and incentives and support for moving away from fossil fuel based energy. The forms those incentives take, or should take, in practice vary from country to country. I'll give you one example. One absurdity in the UK is that electricity bills include a surcharge to help fund the development of the network to accommodate the shift to renewables. However gas bills do not, as gas uses a legacy network that is not being developed. It should be the other way round, so that legacy fossil fuel use funds the shift to renewables. That would make gas more expensive and electricity cheaper which would also be an incentive to shift over. But politically this is dynamite, as most people heat their houses with gas and for poor people, increasing their gas bills too much could make them unable to afford to heat them in winter, given that these people are the least able to invest in a new, electricity based, heating system. So this kind of thing has to be handled, politically, with kid gloves, even though the science is obvious. Edited July 10 by exchemist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDBarrow Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, swansont said: And coal has a 50% higher energy density than wood, which is a reason it was adopted. You can’t be serious, suggesting we use wood for aviation. No, but we can use fuels from corn to power jet planes, or even, steam locomotives, however. WOOD COULD STILL BE BURNED IN STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. People still burn wood inside homes for wintertime heat. Coal is a finite resource unlike wood harvested from trees. Corn crops are also renewable. I'm not trying to mock any form of energy. I'm trying to find a practical approach to the issues. People should be practical about things. The best energy bets for the future might be: solar, wind, waterpower (hydroelectric) and biofuels in no particular order. Biological energy is still employed to some extent: animals as horses, mules, humans, dogs and oxen are still used to do work: manual labor. That is the whole point of energy in the first place, to accomplish work. PS - Please don't forget the ocean which covers 70% of our planet! The sea's waves are rich with future kilowatt-hour possibilities! The ocean is the last frontier on earth for clean energy. Edited July 10 by JohnDBarrow -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 55 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: No, but we can use fuels from corn to power jet planes, or even, steam locomotives, however. WOOD COULD STILL BE BURNED IN STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. It could, in that it is not impossible, but it’s not a practical solution. Can you think of (and post) the pros and cons, or do you think that just SHOUTING is going to convince anybody? There are reasons we stopped using wood to fuel steam engines to power trains. The limitations of that mode still exist. Can you think of some? 55 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: People still burn wood inside homes for wintertime heat. Coal is a finite resource unlike wood harvested from trees. Corn crops are also renewable. I'm not trying to mock any form of energy. I'm trying to find a practical approach to the issues. People should be practical about things. Practical implies you’ve done some sort of analysis to show how the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but you’ve not shared this information. 55 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: The best energy bets for the future might be: solar, wind, waterpower (hydroelectric) and biofuels in no particular order. Biological energy is still employed to some extent: animals as horses, mules, humans, dogs and oxen are still used to do work: manual labor. That is the whole point of energy in the first place, to accomplish work. There are reasons we went away from animals, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 50 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: No, but we can use fuels from corn to power jet planes, or even, steam locomotives, however. WOOD COULD STILL BE BURNED IN STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. People still burn wood inside homes for wintertime heat. Coal is a finite resource unlike wood harvested from trees. Corn crops are also renewable. So what are we going to eat, for energy? 53 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm not trying to mock any form of energy. I'm trying to find a practical approach to the issues. People should be practical about things. Indeed, but let's not delude ourselves that our salvation could be found in a backward step, that our rose coloured spec's will somehow salve the wound we've inflicted on ourselves; if we cut down all the tree's, to burn for work, where would we find the fruit to eat to live? I think we're smater than that /sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: No, but we can use fuels from corn to power jet planes, or even, steam locomotives, however. WOOD COULD STILL BE BURNED IN STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. People still burn wood inside homes for wintertime heat. Coal is a finite resource unlike wood harvested from trees. Corn crops are also renewable. I'm not trying to mock any form of energy. I'm trying to find a practical approach to the issues. People should be practical about things. The best energy bets for the future might be: solar, wind, waterpower (hydroelectric) and biofuels in no particular order. Biological energy is still employed to some extent: animals as horses, mules, humans, dogs and oxen are still used to do work: manual labor. That is the whole point of energy in the first place, to accomplish work. PS - Please don't forget the ocean which covers 70% of our planet! The sea's waves are rich with future kilowatt-hour possibilities! The ocean is the last frontier on earth for clean energy. Well yes, all these are part of the mix. One you don’t mention is power from the tides. This, in places like the UK with a large tidal range, has real potential. This long list goes to show that there are many technologies in play, simultaneously. There is no special point in singling out any one of them, as the best choice depends on the location. For transport applications requiring a lot of power e.g ships, heavy duty trucks, or high power/weight ratio e .g aviation, an intermediate fuel, manufactured using green electricity, may be required. This could be hydrogen, or a closely related fuel such as ammonia, which is being seriously looked at for ships. In the meantime for ships, natural gas is starting to be used, as this emits a lot less CO2 per kWh than oil. I saw one of the new Brittany Ferries gas powered car ferries, last time I was in Portsmouth: She's a big ship: 41,000grt, capacity for 550 cars and sails between Portsmouth and Santander in Spain. So there is serious money going into these technologies. I stress again that all this is already happening, at a commercial scale, so we are way beyond just talking about the options. Except perhaps for hydrogen, which still suffers from the inefficiency of today’s electrolytic cells. That’s a problem. Time will tell which ones will get the biggest take-up, based on the economics. Again, this will depend on the location. Edited July 10 by exchemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: No, but we can use fuels from corn to power jet planes, or even, steam locomotives, however. Ethanol has problems, mostly because it involves hideous amounts of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides. Also, any cornfields that aren't producing food to eat means there are people somewhere down the line who die from starvation. We've tracked this for years. Ethanol isn't magic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDBarrow Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 (edited) I'm not here to analyze anything. I'm no energy expert. I'm throwing out ideas onto the open table to see what YOU all think of them. The real solution might be to combine the number of energy sources we have available. Oh, I did throw out sea wave power above. If people are dying from starvation, perhaps we need less people on earth to begin with. Once we figure out how much clean/renewable energy, clean water and food we can produce in a practical manner that is not substantially environmentally harmful and is long-term sustainable/renewable, then we can probably figure out what a healthy world population is from there on. You can't feed thousands of people with a single fish regardless of what the bible says otherwise. My grandfather's wise words before his death were, "Nothing is for nothing." Everything comes with a price. We have to determine the overall scalability of producing clean/green energy. Proposition: could we one day soon produce all the world electricity we ever need in all practicality with one third solar, one third wind and one third combined tidal/river power each and every method making their own contribution to the sum total energy pot of gold? I took nuclear off the table because it's poisonous and uranium is finite as a fuel source. We could also produce biofuels to a level that is feasible too, that is not make so much that it deprives us and our livestock of food. Edited July 10 by JohnDBarrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 8 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm not here to analyze anything. Then perhaps you are on the wrong forum. Here we generally expect people to think, do a little research, present coherent ideas. You don't need to be an expert, but you at least need to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnDBarrow Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 5 minutes ago, zapatos said: Then perhaps you are on the wrong forum. Here we generally expect people to think, do a little research, present coherent ideas. You don't need to be an expert, but you at least need to try. I'm more of a brainstormer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 38 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm not here to analyze anything. I'm no energy expert. I'm throwing out ideas onto the open table to see what YOU all think of them. The real solution might be to combine the number of energy sources we have available. Oh, I did throw out sea wave power above. If people are dying from starvation, perhaps we need less people on earth to begin with. Once we figure out how much energy, clean water and food we can produce in a practical manner that is not substantially environmentally not harmful and is long-term sustainable/renewable, then we can probably figure out what a healthy world population is from there on. You can't feed thousands of people with a single fish regardless of what the bible says otherwise. My grandfather's wise words before his death were, "Nothing is for nothing." Everything comes with a price. Yes, it will inevitably be a combination of technologies, just as has always been the case in fact. Regarding population, the world's population is forecast to reach a plateau in the middle of this century. Basically the birthrate goes down as societies educate and empower women, because then they start to exert more control over whether and when to have babies. But energy consumption is more about GDP than the pure number of people - see next para. Regarding efficiency of energy utilisation, there are some charts that show energy intensity, i.e. energy used per unit GDP output has more or les halved in the last 50 years, so we are getting better at our use of energy in driving economic growth, but the rate of GDP growth greatly outstrips that, so at the moment the trend in energy use is still upward, while the impact of low carbon energy use is still only showing a modest effect. There are some good charts here if you are interested in this: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-intensity Edited July 10 by exchemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm not here to analyze anything. So you want answers but don’t want to do any of the legwork 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm no energy expert. I don’t think anyone here is an energy expert. But people have basic understanding of science, and what we can do is think, look up information, and assess credibility of that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm more of a brainstormer. As I said, this may not be the right forum for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm more of a brainstormer. Storms need energy to build. In this case, studying some science would help your brain... storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I would favor biofuels for aviation use. Farmers producing (more profitable) biofuels don't produce food. Crop acreage is fixed. This raises the price of food for people. Biofuel can be produced by (GMO or not) algae or microorganisms, directly from CO2 and H2O with sufficient solar energy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, Sensei said: Biofuel can be produced by (GMO or not) algae or microorganisms, directly from CO2 and H2O with sufficient solar energy. +1. One of the few biofuel ideas that might be cost-effective and not withdraw arable land from food production or lead to toxic algae blooms in (e.g.) the Gulf of Mexico. (a pleasing irony there - vats of algae preventing mats of algae) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm more of a brainstormer. OK Share. What has your latest brainstorm produced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Externet Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 Two days ago, saw in TV news there is trouble in California as solar generation is exceeding the handling capability. Too much production at certain times of the day forcing utilities to decrease conventional generation and trouble in transmission lines. They were talking about a 'duck curve' and about eliminating subsidies and tax incentives to solar installations to discourage solar. 🙄 Now am pissed. Discouraging solar to raise profit of utilities that have had the pan by the handle $ince day 1. So... Houston, YOU have a problem with greed. ---> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880 ---> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/22/california-solar-duck-curve-rooftop/ ---> https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, Externet said: Too much production at certain times of the day forcing utilities to decrease conventional generation and trouble in transmission lines. The old distribution system - the grid - is wrong. It was always wrong: error-prone, dependent on key nodes, inefficient, wasteful, vulnerable to sabotage and weather, expensive to maintain and repair, dangerous and ugly. But it was profitable. It's not going to stay profitable. We need a better model. Edited July 11 by Peterkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 6 minutes ago, Peterkin said: We need a better model. Sustainability and people over profit? 11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said: I'm more of a brainstormer. Sometimes the wiser move is to wait for the storm to pass and recognize not everyone is facing equal threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 29 minutes ago, iNow said: Sustainability and people over profit? Hey, I think that might work. Let's try it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now