maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 It's very simple. We're moving from a world where we've had an enormous supply of free energy stored in the ground to a world where we have to produce our energy in small pockets, on an annual basis, wherever we can. There won't be enough energy produced in this way to replace anything like the fossilised energy we had available and so there will, in the short term at least, be massive profits to be made from selling what little energy you can produce, particularly storable energy fuels. In economics scarcity causes a rise in prices. However, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread you'll need to use an existing means of energy production to create this stored form of energy and so really you're just making the problem worse. In the longer term the world's population will simply have to adjust to a world that has just a fraction of the energy available that we have today. You can't produce on an annual basis the equivalence of hundreds of thousands of years worth of accumulated fuel production, nevermind adding the additional amount required by population growth and renewed infrastructure each year. So no different to now, we use energy to find oil, get it out of the ground, refine it and transport it. Spain is developing a process in which sea water; CO2 and plankton use the suns energy which is free and readily available to make oil, and the process only takes 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So no different to now, we use energy to find oil, get it out of the ground, refine it and transport it. Spain is developing a process in which sea water; CO2 and plankton use the suns energy which is free and readily available to make oil, and the process only takes 24 hours. Let me give you an example to try to explain this: Two farmers have two identical fields. Farmer 1 has a barn full of hay, he benefits from having the solar energy accumulated from past harvests with which to feed his cows. Farmer 2 has no barn and relies only upon that years solar energy. Farmer 1 can cram 1000 cows into his field because he has enough hay to feed them. Farmer 2 can only have 50 cows because he's relying upon just that year's energy to feed his cattle. Farmer 1 is the world with oil, Farmer 2 is the world without it. Yes there's energy around to be produced, but it will never make up the shortfall`of annual reserves verses fossilised reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Let me give you an example to try to explain this: Two farmers have two identical fields. Farmer 1 has a barn full of hay, he benefits from having the solar energy accumulated from past harvests with which to feed his cows. Farmer 2 has no barn and relies only upon that years solar energy. Farmer 1 can cram 1000 cows into his field because he has enough hay to feed them. Farmer 2 can only have 50 cows because he's relying upon just that year's energy to feed his cattle. Farmer 1 is the world with oil, Farmer 2 is the world without it. Yes there's energy around to be produced, but it will never make up the shortfall`of annual reserves verses fossilised reserves. The sun provides all the energy we will ever need, we are only using the suns stored energy in the form of gas and oil because it is easier and cheaper than harnessing the suns energy directly, sooner or later it will be cheaper and easier to use the suns energy than the gas and oil reserves, science is looking for a way to store the suns energy in a more useful form, such of synthetic petrol, oil, and I have no doubt that they will succeed. I do however think a smaller global population would benefit mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Nuclear is quite easily varied, using the famous inanimate carbon rod to damp the fission process (or withdrawing the fuel rods) and thus producing less heat and slowing the turbines. Gas is the easiest though, with it making up the majority of the variable load we need to supply, and coal is rubbish at ramping up and down and really only suitable to provide base load. Nuclear is a problem to vary on short time scales though - if you shut it down you poison the reactor with xenon and it can take a significant time to get out of the xenon trap and increase power again. If you run at low power for a significant period of time you also have the problem of increasing burnup in only part of the core which also leads to problems. France has lots of experience of running this and they still need some quite drastic demand side management to cope with the load changes on a large fleet of nuclear plants. Gas is the best peaking plant that there is, unless you use excess baseload at night to provide a lot of pumped storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Why not make a car with an electric motor and use the motor to also drive a dynamo that produces the power to run the motor? Surely someone must have thought of this. Put a wind turbine on the roof and you'll make excess energy which you can sell back to the National Grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 France generates much more electricity than they can use at night, because they have a lot of nuclear. The Swiss & Austrians then buy this cheap French electricity at night, use it to pump water up mountains, then the water drives turbines to generate electricity during the day. That process isn't very efficient at all, but it works & it's one of the best ways to store electricity, because every other way is just as bad. Look a little closer to home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The elitist dream team eh?...You just don't 'get' it do you? Come on Pete. You ask some great questions but labelling people who know what they're on about as elitist, just because their correct and precise answers reveal lack of understanding on your part is a little childish don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 That would be a small low noise oscillator without phase spurs that is used in a low power radio for watching birds nests in a conservation area to see when their eggs hatch. What have you invented recently? Hiya Obelix. Can I just say that this is my favourite response, ever, on SF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Look a little closer to home... There is also Cruachan station near Oban. That and Dinorwig were built to provide peaking power for the UK's fleet of nuclear stations, that sadly were never realised. If the UK does go ahead with new nuclear build they will probably be looking for a couple more schemes like that one would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwert Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 This (if for real) is brilliant, Free energy car http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTk-2lcHn38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.