Looks like diesel gonna be a problem.

[gadget73]

The fatal flaw with renewable energy is its inconsistency as a reliable source.

sure its not magic, but there are ways to store it, and at least with solar the peak production also tends to line up with the window of heavy demand, especially in hot summer months with AC load. The other nice thing is that solar can be put on a roof, so it doesn't require extra land, or it can be placed on land thats otherwise fairly useless. Locally there is a solar farm being put in on top of the old landfill. Fill in the rest with nuclear for base load and we have a solid grid without having to deal with shipping goo around.

Fossil fuels may be the most cost-effective but it brings with it leverage. Places that have it know other places need it, and controlling the resource gives them power over others. Its no different with any resource honestly.

 

[electronjohn]

IMO, thorium reactors are the endgame energy source. It is 200 times more energy dense than uranium and produces very little harmful byproducts. They can't have runaway fission like uranium reactors. The reactors can be scaled from large to small. Below is AI's estimate of the longevity of thorium as an energy source.

"Thorium reactors could theoretically power global energy needs for thousands to billions of years, depending on how efficiently the fuel is burned and how much crustal rock we mine. [1, 2, 3]

Why Thorium Lasts So Long

• • High Abundance: Thorium is about 3 to 4 times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It is often collected as a byproduct of rare-earth mining. [1]
  • Energy Density: Just 1 kilogram of thorium in a breeder reactor can unleash roughly 24,000 megawatt-hours of thermal energy—matching the energy output of thousands of tons of coal. [1]
  • Breeder Efficiency: When used in molten-salt or breeder configurations, thorium converts into fissile uranium-233, producing more usable fuel than it consumes. [1, 2]

Estimated Timelines

• • Thousands of Years: Standard conservative estimates suggest known terrestrial reserves can comfortably fuel human civilization for 10,000+ years at modern consumption rates. [1, 2]
  • Billions of Years: Theoretical models using widespread breeder reactors and extracting trace thorium from ordinary crustal rock suggest it could last up to 1 to 5 billion years, outlasting the stable lifetime of the Earth's biosphere. [1]"

Thorium reactors also do a good job of recycling spent conventional fuel rods.

 

[SoCal Sam]

IMO, thorium reactors are the endgame energy source. It is 200 times more energy dense than uranium and produces very little harmful byproducts. They can't have runaway fission like uranium reactors. The reactors can be scaled from large to small. Below is AI's estimate of the longevity of thorium as an energy source.

"Thorium reactors could theoretically power global energy needs for thousands to billions of years, depending on how efficiently the fuel is burned and how much crustal rock we mine. [1, 2, 3]

Why Thorium Lasts So Long

• • High Abundance: Thorium is about 3 to 4 times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It is often collected as a byproduct of rare-earth mining. [1]
  • Energy Density: Just 1 kilogram of thorium in a breeder reactor can unleash roughly 24,000 megawatt-hours of thermal energy—matching the energy output of thousands of tons of coal. [1]
  • Breeder Efficiency: When used in molten-salt or breeder configurations, thorium converts into fissile uranium-233, producing more usable fuel than it consumes. [1, 2]

Estimated Timelines

• • Thousands of Years: Standard conservative estimates suggest known terrestrial reserves can comfortably fuel human civilization for 10,000+ years at modern consumption rates. [1, 2]
  • Billions of Years: Theoretical models using widespread breeder reactors and extracting trace thorium from ordinary crustal rock suggest it could last up to 1 to 5 billion years, outlasting the stable lifetime of the Earth's biosphere. [1]"

Not sure if Radiant Kaleidos is another green balloon. This so called micro-reactor is pretty in CGI images and is suppose to be a miraculous solution.

 

[SoCal Sam]

sure its not magic, but there are ways to store it, and at least with solar the peak production also tends to line up with the window of heavy demand, especially in hot summer months with AC load. The other nice thing is that solar can be put on a roof, so it doesn't require extra land, or it can be placed on land thats otherwise fairly useless. Locally there is a solar farm being put in on top of the old landfill. Fill in the rest with nuclear for base load and we have a solid grid without having to deal with shipping goo around.

Fossil fuels may be the most cost-effective but it brings with it leverage. Places that have it know other places need it, and controlling the resource gives them power over others. Its no different with any resource honestly.

Battery storage has not been perfected, see Moss Landing.

Leverage is a fact of life. The big picture is fossil is inexpensive and makes exercising freedom of movement affordable. Anyone who has had the ambition to leave their basement knows this.

 

[ConradH]

Vanadium electrolyte batteries are an interesting, scalable, concept. See Storion Energy - Vanadium Electrolyte

I've found leaving the basement is generally a bad idea. Something expensive or disturbing usually happens. Even getting out of bed can be risky if sensible precautions aren't taken.

 

[OldJBL]

Not sure if Radiant Kaleidos is another green balloon. This so called micro-reactor is pretty in CGI images and is suppose to be a miraculous solution.

I don't want small scale conventional fueled reactors. I think this is a recipe for disaster from many angles. IMO, before we travel down this road, thorium reactors need to be mainstream to prevent the pitfalls of using u235. Thorium waste decays in 300-500 years where the Radiant Kaleidos waste takes 10,000+ years. Thorium reactors are far safer and far less prone to be used for nefarious purposes. The main reason we don't have thorium reactors now is that in the 1950s the military wanted to go with uranium 235, instead of thorium 233, in order to produce plutonium in large enough quantities for use in nuclear weapons. It is much more difficult to do this using thorium (u233).

 

[OldJBL]

sure its not magic, but there are ways to store it, and at least with solar the peak production also tends to line up with the window of heavy demand, especially in hot summer months with AC load. The other nice thing is that solar can be put on a roof, so it doesn't require extra land, or it can be placed on land thats otherwise fairly useless. Locally there is a solar farm being put in on top of the old landfill. Fill in the rest with nuclear for base load and we have a solid grid without having to deal with shipping goo around.

Fossil fuels may be the most cost-effective but it brings with it leverage. Places that have it know other places need it, and controlling the resource gives them power over others. Its no different with any resource honestly.

What we have learned from using renewable energy sources like solar and wind is that energy can be generated but storing it is extremely difficult and costly. We have had solar and wind generation for many decades but have advanced very little in the area of storing electricity in mass quantities. I don't see this changing any time soon which greatly limits how useful solar and wind can be in its use on a mass scale.

 

[whoaru99]

Also has negative effects on engines - so I am told. I was told to add TECHRON after a trip to midwest where many gas blends use lots of ethanol.

That's bunk re. needing Techron after using E10. The only "regular" fuel here in MN has been E10 for decades. If I needed to add Techron due to using E10 in several vehicles I'd own a part of Chevron by now.

 

[Enophile]

IMO, thorium reactors are the endgame energy source. It is 200 times more energy dense than uranium and produces very little harmful byproducts. They can't have runaway fission like uranium reactors. The reactors can be scaled from large to small. Below is AI's estimate of the longevity of thorium as an energy source.

"Thorium reactors could theoretically power global energy needs for thousands to billions of years, depending on how efficiently the fuel is burned and how much crustal rock we mine. [1, 2, 3]

Why Thorium Lasts So Long

• • High Abundance: Thorium is about 3 to 4 times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It is often collected as a byproduct of rare-earth mining. [1]
  • Energy Density: Just 1 kilogram of thorium in a breeder reactor can unleash roughly 24,000 megawatt-hours of thermal energy—matching the energy output of thousands of tons of coal. [1]
  • Breeder Efficiency: When used in molten-salt or breeder configurations, thorium converts into fissile uranium-233, producing more usable fuel than it consumes. [1, 2]

Estimated Timelines

• • Thousands of Years: Standard conservative estimates suggest known terrestrial reserves can comfortably fuel human civilization for 10,000+ years at modern consumption rates. [1, 2]
  • Billions of Years: Theoretical models using widespread breeder reactors and extracting trace thorium from ordinary crustal rock suggest it could last up to 1 to 5 billion years, outlasting the stable lifetime of the Earth's biosphere. [1]"

What? The A.I. is too dangerous to trust. It's lying to get you to create infinite power for A.I.'s plan to take over the world.

I am going to name A.I. "Pinky" as an ironic twist.

 

[gadget73]

Battery storage has not been perfected, see Moss Landing.

Batteries aren't the only option. Pumped water is one way to do it, have also seen stuff that is basically a train car full of rocks being lugged up an incline. All very lossy and space-consuming of course, but some loss is better than total loss.

What we have learned from using renewable energy sources like solar and wind is that energy can be generated but storing it is extremely difficult and costly. We have had solar and wind generation for many decades but have advanced very little in the area of storing electricity in mass quantities. I don't see this changing any time soon which greatly limits how useful solar and wind can be in its use on a mass scale.

true, and also why I said base load with nuclear, peak demand with renewables.

 

[grey]

Batteries aren't the only option. Pumped water is one way to do it, have also seen stuff that is basically a train car full of rocks being lugged up an incline. All very lossy and space-consuming of course, but some loss is better than total loss.

I've seen a similar concept proposal with an "air battery". Compressed air as storage.

 

[OldJBL]

Batteries aren't the only option. Pumped water is one way to do it, have also seen stuff that is basically a train car full of rocks being lugged up an incline. All very lossy and space-consuming of course, but some loss is better than total loss.

One problem with these methods is conversion losses. When using water it typically means that rainfall is necessary which hinders reliable power generation from solar. Remember the solar project that used mirrors in the desert? It directed the reflected sun rays to a tower that used molton salt to store heat for use in off peak hours to generate electricity. It didn't work as expected. In theory, I thought this might work because it might be more efficient than solar panels.

The other problem with storing energy mechaniclly is that a substantial power generation plant has to be built that only operates part time to provide electricity. This makes electricity cost very high.

true, and also why I said base load with nuclear, peak demand with renewables.

There is no easy, economical way to store electricity. By its nature it is an immediate consumable form of energy in mass quantities which is mostly how we consume it.

 

[OldJBL]

true, and also why I said base load with nuclear, peak demand with renewables.

The big problem with large scale conventional power generation is the plant has to be running full tilt all the time to meet peak demands. Only hydroelectric power plants can throttle power generation on demand. Any plant that uses thermal energy can't do this. It takes too long to reestablish temperature levels in the plant to meet peak power demands. This is why electricity rates drop at night because the power plant is producing a large amount of unneeded power generation. It encourages industry, people charging EVs etc. to use electricity in off peak hours to save money. Theoretically, this lessens peak demand at other times of the day.

 

[SoCal Sam]

Batteries aren't the only option. Pumped water is one way to do it, have also seen stuff that is basically a train car full of rocks being lugged up an incline. All very lossy and space-consuming of course, but some loss is better than total loss.


true, and also why I said base load with nuclear, peak demand with renewables.

Storage is only useful if the endgame is to REPLACE fossil. Storage is not necessary if solar and wind are deployed in real time which reduces fossil fuel usage. Renewables should be viewed as an adjunct and not primary source. Oil reserves are plentiful.

 

[OldJBL]

Storage is only useful if the endgame is to REPLACE fossil. Storage is not necessary if solar and wind are deployed in real time which reduces fossil fuel usage. Renewables should be viewed as an adjunct and not primary source. Oil reserves are plentiful.

There is some interesting things going on with hydrogen extraction from ground sources. There is some indications that processes in the Earth's crust and upper mantle manufacture hydrogen gas from water molecules. It is a self regenerating energy source. If this proves out then hydrogen might be our end game main energy source.

Then there is methanehydrate which is available in quantities that dwarf oil, natural gas, etc. There is roughly 2-10 times more of it than all conventional and unconventional oil, natural gas, and coal reserves etc. combined. Add in thorium power generation and there really isn't much need to pursue solar and wind on a large scale.

 

[TomD62]

The big problem with large scale conventional power generation is the plant has to be running full tilt all the time to meet peak demands. Only hydroelectric power plants can throttle power generation on demand. Any plant that uses thermal energy can't do this. It takes too long to reestablish temperature levels in the plant to meet peak power demands. This is why electricity rates drop at night because the power plant is producing a large amount of unneeded power generation. It encourages industry, people charging EVs etc. to use electricity in off peak hours to save money. Theoretically, this lessens peak demand at other times of the day.

That is not true. A combined cycle plant powered by fossil fuel can vary load as grid load demand changes. Even the old boiler fed steam turbines do not have to operate at maximum load all of the time.

Hydros can also reduce load by changing wicket gate locations and what is nice about hydro is they take about 10 seconds to be up and running. I had a few customers that would regularly get dispatched from ISO New England for 1 hour runs multiple times a day, if needed.

 

[gadget73]

Oil reserves are plentiful.

endlessly debatable, my personal preference would be to not use it even if the supply is unlimited. It eliminates others being able to affect us by turning off the supply. Of course it also works the other way, we can't affect anyone else by messing with the supply either. Consider it an equalizer. See all of the wars that have not been fought over the supply of nitrogen for example.

 

[OldJBL]

That is not true. A combined cycle plant powered by fossil fuel can vary load as grid load demand changes. Even the old boiler fed steam turbines do not have to operate at maximum load all of the time.

It is true due to the scale of power production in large scale plants. They can reduce electrical output but need to maintain thermal levels to meet the next peek demand cycle. There are other reasons this is done too like stress and fatigue of components and drops in generating efficiency. There might be less need for fuel quantities during low demand periods but temperatures need to be constant.

 

[ConradH]

Science and facts don't matter. The best solutions are of no concern. The outcome will be determined by power, politics and money. Thus it has ever been.

 

[SoCal Sam]

endlessly debatable, my personal preference would be to not use it even if the supply is unlimited. It eliminates others being able to affect us by turning off the supply. Of course it also works the other way, we can't affect anyone else by messing with the supply either. Consider it an equalizer. See all of the wars that have not been fought over the supply of nitrogen for example.

Substitute oil for any other form of energy that is controlled by a few. Leverage does not go away.