Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
L
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
I'm curious as to what it takes to mine the metals/ores to make the batteries and how the old batteries are disposed of and where all the electricity will come from to charge these batteries and how semi's will become electric suddenly, and how much it will cost to build the charging stations and how combines and tractors will fit into everything and how the use of plastic will change and much solar power will be needed for everyone to run the a/c's and how we'll heat our homes and businesses and a million other things.

And then, will other countries do the same.


A big study came out on this just this week:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585...ycle-assessment

From construction through the lifetime of the vehicle, electric vehicles release less fossil fuels than diesel engines.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585...ycle-assessment

They even break it down by country -- because the biggest effect is whether or not you are drawing the power for your vehicle from a coal/natural gas plant. But even if you are - the EVs are still cleaner by about 25%. For the average US consumer, EVs are cleaner by about 60%.


Last edited by Lyuokdea; 08/19/21 04:19 AM.

~Lyuokdea
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
Good read, thanks for posting.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
Hall of Famer
OP Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
When do you think nuclear fission becomes a viable, mainstream energy source? I’m thinking the over under is 2030, I’ll take the under.


President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 117
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 117
Originally Posted By: FloridaFan
Good read, thanks for posting.




Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
L
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
Originally Posted By: BuckDawg1946
When do you think nuclear fission becomes a viable, mainstream energy source? I’m thinking the over under is 2030, I’ll take the under.


Do you mean fusion? Fission has been a reliable power source for 50 years (and it could have provided for all our energy needs if we didn't freak out about radiation)....

Fusion is a bit harder -- the first "research reactor" with a positive output is expected to come online in 2025... But it is probably a long time until we get to commercial plants - and even longer before it becomes cheaper than solar (which is currently the cheapest power you can get -- and continuing to get cheaper fast).


~Lyuokdea
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
Hall of Famer
OP Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
Fusion, we need to lay the foundation of green energy transfer.


President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
L
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
Originally Posted By: BuckDawg1946
Fusion, we need to lay the foundation of green energy transfer.


A few disconnected thoughts:

1.) Fusion will someday be a foundation of an energy economy -- it can provide the power of fission without the long term storage issues....

2.) This is probably still several decades off. Fusion power is hard. Continuous fusion power is even harder.

3.) If we want unlimited carbon free power now -- fission is the way to go... It will be a long time before fusion is as efficient or reliable.

4.) Nuclear fission is clean - and the safest power that you can purchase (once you factor in the safety dangers of installation).... Environmentalists made a terrible choice in cutting nuclear power -- given that the result was more coal and oil.

5.) I used to be 100% on team "nuclear fission" - I am less so now. Why? Solar power is getting cheaper and cheaper -- and methods for storing solar power are also scaling up. Given the political hurdle of building new nuclear plants -- solar might be the way to go over the next decade.

6.) There are better ways to save long-term solar power than batteries -- and we should be exploiting them.

e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018...ble-energy.html

Which is, of course, being stopped by some silly environmental group that is worried about fish...


~Lyuokdea
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
Hall of Famer
OP Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,939
Likes: 2
I think fusion and green energy are interchangeable terms. I heard 2030 is a realistic time frame for fusion?

The byproduct of fission was never a long term solution. You are correct with photovoltaics and wind power, expect a boom in that sector shortly.


President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
L
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 59
Originally Posted By: BuckDawg1946
I think fusion and green energy are interchangeable terms.


What do you mean by this? Green Power encompasses fusion -- but solar power, wind power, hydro power, fission, are all green?

Originally Posted By: BuckDawg1946

I heard 2030 is a realistic time frame for fusion?


That seems wildly optimistic. ITER is the first large-scale research plant that is expected to generate positive power. However, they are hoping that it can provide positive power for like, a few minutes per day -- so they aren't going to use it to actually provide useful power to anybody.

It is supposed to start running in 2025. They broke ground on the facility in 2013. Even if it works, the idea that companies could scale it up - build useful power plants (that provide energy continuously) within 5 years, is a pipe dream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Quote:

The byproduct of fission was never a long term solution. You are correct with photovoltaics and wind power, expect a boom in that sector shortly.


I honestly don't know why not. There are very good procedures for storing radioactive byproducts in glass - placing them in stable caves underground, etc. You of course, risk a leak that makes some small region uninhabitable -- but honestly that's a small price to pay compared to global warming. (There are many regions of 100 square miles in this world that nobody lives in).


~Lyuokdea
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,472
Likes: 795
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,472
Likes: 795
I think his use of the term realistic is more about knowing it is viable and can move forward on a larger scale.

We know nuclear works, but it takes 10-15 years to build the things. Even if we all out in that direction it would probably take 40-50 years to pretty much eliminate coal fired plants. Maybe longer.

At least to this point, there are only so many engineering and construction companies licensed to build the things. We can't have some half ass start up building the things. You are still looking at companies like GE, Westinghouse, Bechtel.

For a young person, training in the construction trades to get hired by one of those or similar companies might be a good option rather than going in to debt with a standard college degree. A lot of these plants will be going up over the next 50 or so years. That is a career of solid work.

No doubt it isn't for everybody. If you don't like working in extreme weather conditions, having gritty hands for your life, packing your lunch every day, or having to move around to follow the work, it's probably not your best option.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,555
Likes: 587
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,555
Likes: 587
I can definitely see your point. I think the only hope for acceleration from my viewpoint is the exponential advancement of technology, but I agree it’d still be a long shot.

I know I’ve railed on some companies before in the defense sector, but I have to say, when I meet some of their engineering and physicist teams and look at how their minds work, it’s crazy. Definitely some brilliant minds in that sector. I imagine it’s the same with a lot of commercially based technological companies. Way above my competency. Here’s hoping…


Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown

#gmstrong
Page 2 of 2 1 2
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Thermohaline Circulation

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5