When Science is a Conveyor of Bad News
Discussion
IMO, very articulate and thought provoking Do the Math (Tom Murphy) essay titled as above.
Being an unashamed peak oil, current-demand-exceeding-carrying-capacity Malthusian type, the bullet points he presents particularly register:
Also, if you liked it then this has more PH relevance with the electric car debate.
Being an unashamed peak oil, current-demand-exceeding-carrying-capacity Malthusian type, the bullet points he presents particularly register:
- Our familiar growth phase is a temporary phenomenon, as any exponential function must be;
- The chief energy source that brought us to this place is finite and will wane over the next century or so;
- Modern agriculture is dependent on finite fossil fuels, requiring roughly ten calories of energy input for every one calorie delivered to the table;
- Population will continue to grow even if birthrate suddenly dropped to replacement levels around the world due to demographic inertia (a young-laden distribution not yet at reproductive age);
- Escaping the bounds of this planet does not constitute a likely escape hatch due to both energy constraints and the hostile environment we find away from the eggshell-thin layer around the earth;
- Our fossil fuel bonanza has created an unauthorized global-scale climate experiment that may wreak havoc on crops and the interconnected web of species on the planet.
Also, if you liked it then this has more PH relevance with the electric car debate.
We have nuclear energy. I don't think we're going to run out of energy any time soon if we employ that. If we can find a way to produce a liquid fuel using electricity then we're on a winner because then we are freed from wires.
In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
mrmr96 said:
We have nuclear energy. I don't think we're going to run out of energy any time soon if we employ that. If we can find a way to produce a liquid fuel using electricity then we're on a winner because then we are freed from wires.
In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
Yes, with the proviso that we use a model of local energy generation, more powerstations but smaller. like shipping container sized...In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/... (note they say ready in 5 years, that was 4 years ago...
Eric Mc said:
I wonder why some people become scientists if it only makes them so depressed.
Don't worry, there are chemists working on solutions.It does beg the question why we continue to ignore the elephant in the room with regards to nuclear power. If people are worried about contaminated waste then surely we can come up with a solution to send the waste into space on a trajectory to impact a meteor, planet or something?
Have the media demonised nuclear power into being socially unacceptable?
T S Magnum said:
Also, if you liked it then this has more PH relevance with the electric car debate.
To be fair, while that article is technically correct, it is based around the idiom of 'things are bad and they always will be', the writer even states this:Article said:
Rephrasing: the physics we currently understand is not sufficient to deliver the kind of battery we need to make the future work without fossil fuels. Red flags go up for me when it is our understanding of physics rather than practical engineering challenges standing in the way—as serious as the latter can be. Physics limitations instantly present a much taller order to overcome.
This is wholly incorrect. You don't have to look far online and in research papers to see that there are a variety of battery technologies on the horizon, some based on exactly the same chemistry and physics as what are commercially available now, that have the potential (no pun intended) to offer multiples more power and energy per kilo than what is commercially available today. The main challenges involved are making them mass producable and robust enough to survive the amount of charge cycles needed to be practical. These are quite obviously engineering challenges rather than scientific shortcomings.
And that isn't enough, the author has banged on about energy density while completely ignoring the implications of effiency while deploying that stored energy.
Looking at some of the other stuff discussed in this thread, perhaps it's universal that doom and gloom is inevitable if you look at today's problems without considering tomorrow's technology.
pherlopolus said:
mrmr96 said:
We have nuclear energy. I don't think we're going to run out of energy any time soon if we employ that. If we can find a way to produce a liquid fuel using electricity then we're on a winner because then we are freed from wires.
In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
Yes, with the proviso that we use a model of local energy generation, more powerstations but smaller. like shipping container sized...In short, Nuclear Energy creates electricity, which we can use to create Hydrogen, which we can use in fuel cells to do whatever we need with no limit on resources and no pollution.
Job jobbed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/... (note they say ready in 5 years, that was 4 years ago...
The Wookie said:
This is wholly incorrect. You don't have to look far online and in research papers to see that there are a variety of battery technologies on the horizon, some based on exactly the same chemistry and physics as what are commercially available now, that have the potential (no pun intended) to offer multiples more power and energy per kilo than what is commercially available today.
The author talks about batteries that can replace fossil fuels. Can the battery technologies on the horizon make the leap such that planes, ships, trains, lorries, tractors etc. could be battery powered? MikeGTi said:
It does beg the question why we continue to ignore the elephant in the room with regards to nuclear power. If people are worried about contaminated waste then surely we can come up with a solution to send the waste into space on a trajectory to impact a meteor, planet or something?
My own nuclear issues (hopefully misguided):As I understand it, much like oil, the best reserves of uranium are already gone and a production peak is not far away (2040ish).
To replace fossil fuels we'd need to build hundreds if not thousands of full size nuclear plants. Where is the funding, resources, political will, public will going to come from for that?
There would be so many reactors everywhere that incidents like Fukushima would happen with unpleasant regularity.
Don't want to think about all the horrific waste products that need disposal.
mrmr96 said:
Why loads of small ones? We can send the power on pylons?
I just like the idea 
local cooperatives running local power generation, losing the monopoly, level energy prices for the 10 year life of the generator... if i could have a home sized one it would be even better, combined with solar (electric and water heating) would be a nice package.pherlopolus said:
mrmr96 said:
Why loads of small ones? We can send the power on pylons?
I just like the idea local cooperatives running local power generation, losing the monopoly, level energy prices for the 10 year life of the generator... if i could have a home sized one it would be even better, combined with solar (electric and water heating) would be a nice package.
king build some nuclear stations and give everyone 3kW bar fires! No need to insulate your roof windows. We should have so much electricity flowing around that it's peanuts and no one worries about it. Would be a much simpler solution that trying to insulate all the houses and move to energy fking saving bulbs. Just use nuclear and we'll have more electric than we know what to do with. /Solved.T S Magnum said:
My own nuclear issues (hopefully misguided):
As I understand it, much like oil, the best reserves of uranium are already gone and a production peak is not far away (2040ish).
To replace fossil fuels we'd need to build hundreds if not thousands of full size nuclear plants. Where is the funding, resources, political will, public will going to come from for that?
There would be so many reactors everywhere that incidents like Fukushima would happen with unpleasant regularity.
Don't want to think about all the horrific waste products that need disposal.
The future has to be nuclear. However, that nuclear future needs to be fusion not fission. Hopefully the research being done into commercialising fusion power generation will bear fruit.As I understand it, much like oil, the best reserves of uranium are already gone and a production peak is not far away (2040ish).
To replace fossil fuels we'd need to build hundreds if not thousands of full size nuclear plants. Where is the funding, resources, political will, public will going to come from for that?
There would be so many reactors everywhere that incidents like Fukushima would happen with unpleasant regularity.
Don't want to think about all the horrific waste products that need disposal.
The political will/funding, public will etc will come about if we start getting energy shortages. Once the general public can't watch X-Factor/Eastenders due to electricity shortages they'll be clamouring for new powerstations.
I think the contribution of nuclear into our total energy will increase, but contribute enough to replace fossil fuels and make up for future demand increases? No way.
As mentioned above batteries are decades away from replacing liquid fuels if ever. Hydrogen as a fuel still has a lot of issues. Also, any conversion of electricity (from nuclear) to liquid fuel will add another layer of inefficiency.
Nuclear providing an energy bonanza for 7, maybe 9, billion people is fantasy.
We have no ordained right to a solution for every hole we dig ourselves into. Fossil fuels saved us when we'd chopped down all our trees for fuel but now look what we've gone and done with them! By increasing our numbers by 700% and making our civilisation vastly more complex and energy intensive we're now in an almighty hole.
As mentioned above batteries are decades away from replacing liquid fuels if ever. Hydrogen as a fuel still has a lot of issues. Also, any conversion of electricity (from nuclear) to liquid fuel will add another layer of inefficiency.
Nuclear providing an energy bonanza for 7, maybe 9, billion people is fantasy.
We have no ordained right to a solution for every hole we dig ourselves into. Fossil fuels saved us when we'd chopped down all our trees for fuel but now look what we've gone and done with them! By increasing our numbers by 700% and making our civilisation vastly more complex and energy intensive we're now in an almighty hole.
T S Magnum said:
I think the contribution of nuclear into our total energy will increase, but contribute enough to replace fossil fuels and make up for future demand increases? No way.
Why not? The potential for fusion power is huge, is relatively clean and doesn't require rare elements as fuel. It needs a lot more development and then commercialisation but has great potential.T S Magnum said:
As mentioned above batteries are decades away from replacing liquid fuels if ever. Hydrogen as a fuel still has a lot of issues. Also, any conversion of electricity (from nuclear) to liquid fuel will add another layer of inefficiency.
Battery tech is another area of strong research although if you have plentiful fusion-electricity then H2 production less of a worry.T S Magnum said:
Nuclear providing an energy bonanza for 7, maybe 9, billion people is fantasy.
Fission perhaps, but fusion has potential.T S Magnum said:
We have no ordained right to a solution for every hole we dig ourselves into. Fossil fuels saved us when we'd chopped down all our trees for fuel but now look what we've gone and done with them! By increasing our numbers by 700% and making our civilisation vastly more complex and energy intensive we're now in an almighty hole.
So what is your solution? Your posts on this thread seem to indicate you believe all hope is lost, that the only solution is massive depopulation. I'm less negative about it. Human ingenuity is our greatest asset.
MikeGTi said:
It does beg the question why we continue to ignore the elephant in the room with regards to nuclear power. If people are worried about contaminated waste then surely we can come up with a solution to send the waste into space on a trajectory to impact a meteor, planet or something?
I used to think this was fabulous idea too, until someone asked the question: what happens if it explodes on take-off or before it leaves the atmosphere?As a chemist, I believe the problem of how to process and 'make-safe' reactor waste is solveable within our generation.
Even ex-Aussie PM Howard's idea of building a vast nuclear waste repository in the unpopulated outback and then charging nations vast amounts to store it there until it can be dealt with is looking pretty good.
But "NO!" screamed the luddites and philistines, "we can't dump one country's nuclear legacy onto another, it's not fair, they didn't produce the waste".
So sad that the vast majority can't accept that we live on a global planet and need to share all resources, including barren land, and stop obsessing about imaginary f
king lines in the sand!BVV,
Citizen, not of England, not of Europe, but of EARTH!
Links:
Link to the plan (this one is from the office of Bush but was 100% backed by Howard:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/_docs/GNEPStratPla...
Link to the luddites:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/politics/...
Apologies for not copying the text into the post but there's a lot of it.
T S Magnum said:
IMO, very articulate and thought provoking Do the Math (Tom Murphy) essay titled as above.
Being an unashamed peak oil, current-demand-exceeding-carrying-capacity Malthusian type, the bullet points he presents particularly register:
Nonsense - growth will slow down as the developing countries become developed but there will still be growth (unless global cooling really kicks in soon).Being an unashamed peak oil, current-demand-exceeding-carrying-capacity Malthusian type, the bullet points he presents particularly register:
- Our familiar growth phase is a temporary phenomenon, as any exponential function must be;
Tom Murphy said:
- The chief energy source that brought us to this place is finite and will wane over the next century or so;
Tom Murphy said:
- Modern agriculture is dependent on finite fossil fuels, requiring roughly ten calories of energy input for every one calorie delivered to the table;
Tom Murphy said:
- Population will continue to grow even if birthrate suddenly dropped to replacement levels around the world due to demographic inertia (a young-laden distribution not yet at reproductive age);
Tom Murphy said:
- Escaping the bounds of this planet does not constitute a likely escape hatch due to both energy constraints and the hostile environment we find away from the eggshell-thin layer around the earth;
Tom Murphy said:
- Our fossil fuel bonanza has created an unauthorized global-scale climate experiment that may wreak havoc on crops and the interconnected web of species on the planet.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff