A happy Carbon loving future.

Void · 2018-06-15 08:48:16

I somewhere else tried to get a conversation going about this but it did not get anywhere.

The idea, that instead of a future of a supposed global warming catastrophe, we may in fact cope, and end up doing very well!

Well no, here is something to wring our hands over Thankfully!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44357243
Quote:

A rapid reduction in demand for fossil fuels could see global economic losses of $1-4 trillion by 2035 according to a new report.

From Sweden and also being looked into elsewhere:
https://newatlas.com/eroadarlanda-swede … way/54197/
Quote:

The Swedish project eRoadArlanda powers electric vehicles through a slot car-like track embedded in the road(Credit: eRoadArlanda)

To be honest with you have some reservations about this working well in the winter, but lets see how they do. If it does have problems I know that there are similar things being looked into that might do better.

The point of this is that for a country like Sweden, where population is close, and they do have a greater economic incentive to go away from imported energy, this makes a lot of economic and national sense.

Much of Europe, and East Asia/South Asia may fall into this category, so I don't think the petrochemical majors will be able to kill it in it's crib like they would if it was just North America or the Persian Gulf.

North America having petrochemical reserves, and being less compact population wise will likely be less of a driver for this. But I believe there is still research going on here.

And then there is this. Pulling Carbon from the air to make fuels (In Canada):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/canadian-fir … 27784.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-cana … ir-2015-10
Quote:

A Bill Gates-backed Canadian company opened a plant that sucks carbon from the air

So, I am wondering if down the road much of Europe, and East Asia/South Asia will simply want to make their Carbon fuels from Carbon pulled from the air and alternative energy. Why not? Why import something costly that is also a pollution and safety hazard?

......

It will be decades or more, but eventually will the Earths atmosphere become CO2 depleted?

This could be a strange new world that may be coming.

The political left and right who I don't even think belong in the "New Worlds" will have to find a new political football if this happens. Perhaps we can send them to a new colony called "VerbalViolencia". I recommend it be on the surface of the sun or the deeps of Hell.
They can perhaps have clones of Hitler and Stalin to lead them.

There I got political!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-15 09:21:14)

louis · 2018-06-15 16:05:19

Looking at the figures, the graphs, it's pretty clear to me that it is only a matter of time (at most 20 years from now) before solar plus storage (batteries) wipes the floor with all other energy systems (including wind energy) in all temperate/tropical areas. Once you have electric roads as well, that means you can have much smaller, lighter and less expensive batteries in electric cars, so their cost will approach those of petrol/gas or diesel vehicles (whilst of course offering much cheaper fuel costs and less expensive maintenance). Pollution from tyre wear will also approach that of petrol or diesel vehicles. Electric roads don't cost that much, given roads have to be re-laid all the time in any case.

All disruptive technologies create losses elsewhere. Hundreds of miles of canals were built in the UK between 1780 and 1840 at huge cost only to be superseded by railways a few years later. Such is life.

Carbon depletion? Hmmm...maybe, maybe not. But if solar plus storage takes over, then my understanding is the excess CO2 will naturally deplete and the Earth CO2 system will return to equilibrium. I think it quite likely that the process will be speeded up by artificial extraction of CO2. Maybe the carbon will be used in steel production?

Void wrote:

I somewhere else tried to get a conversation going about this but it did not get anywhere.
The idea, that instead of a future of a supposed global warming catastrophe, we may in fact cope, and end up doing very well!
Well no, here is something to wring our hands over Thankfully!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44357243
Quote:
A rapid reduction in demand for fossil fuels could see global economic losses of $1-4 trillion by 2035 according to a new report.
From Sweden and also being looked into elsewhere:
https://newatlas.com/eroadarlanda-swede … way/54197/
Quote:
The Swedish project eRoadArlanda powers electric vehicles through a slot car-like track embedded in the road(Credit: eRoadArlanda)
To be honest with you have some reservations about this working well in the winter, but lets see how they do. If it does have problems I know that there are similar things being looked into that might do better.
The point of this is that for a country like Sweden, where population is close, and they do have a greater economic incentive to go away from imported energy, this makes a lot of economic and national sense.
Much of Europe, and East Asia/South Asia may fall into this category, so I don't think the petrochemical majors will be able to kill it in it's crib like they would if it was just North America or the Persian Gulf.
North America having petrochemical reserves, and being less compact population wise will likely be less of a driver for this. But I believe there is still research going on here.
And then there is this. Pulling Carbon from the air to make fuels (In Canada):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/canadian-fir … 27784.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-cana … ir-2015-10
Quote:
A Bill Gates-backed Canadian company opened a plant that sucks carbon from the air
So, I am wondering if down the road much of Europe, and East Asia/South Asia will simply want to make their Carbon fuels from Carbon pulled from the air and alternative energy. Why not? Why import something costly that is also a pollution and safety hazard?
......
It will be decades or more, but eventually will the Earths atmosphere become CO2 depleted?
This could be a strange new world that may be coming.
The political left and right who I don't even think belong in the "New Worlds" will have to find a new political football if this happens. Perhaps we can send them to a new colony called "VerbalViolencia". I recommend it be on the surface of the sun or the deeps of Hell.
They can perhaps have clones of Hitler and Stalin to lead them.
There I got political!
Done.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-15 16:55:41)

kbd512 · 2018-06-15 16:52:01

Void,

It's in "Rules for Radicals". Pick an issue, fix it, polarize it, and then claim anything you like about people who don't support your viewpoint. They'll claim you're "anti-science", "anti-this", "anti-that", or simply start in with yawn-inducing insults and threats to avoid any real debate about their asinine ideas. Ultimately, the people making such claims are simply "anti-human" communists or anarchists who wish to pit brother against brother so they can use the ever-increasing power of the state to rob everyone else blind without anyone paying attention to what they're doing. Neither their vitriolic language, tactics, or agenda fool people like myself who do this "damn fool thing", as George Carlin put it, called "thinking for myself". It's also why they keep changing the tactics and language they use and keep trying to redefine the common meaning of the words they use to mean things that they don't.

First it was "global cooling", then it was "global warming", and now it's "climate change". I think it's just "anthropogenic global stupidity" from political partisan children with more anger than intelligence who lack the insight to admit to themselves that we know a lot less about the way the world works than we think we do. My favorite is the "scientific consensus" arguments. Science is not democratic and consensus means very little, as history has shown. That's how religion works and there's nothing scientific about it. There was a consensus in Nazi Germany. We all know how that ended, so perhaps rigid ideological adherence is not a laudable character trait. Our wiser forefathers stated that you should always support your fellow countrymen and your government only when it deserves it. There is nothing even remotely approaching infallibility as it pertains to government or science, therefore most things that come from both should be taken with a mountain of salt.

True scientists question everything, including their own beliefs and experimental results. When their hypothesis or models don't agree with observed data, their brains should go into overdrive trying to figure out why. Science was not political before political partisans started using it as a tool to push their anti-human agendas and conclusions from results are not derived by consensus belief about the results, which is not math-based and therefore not reason-based. If something doesn't mathematically compute, a rigorous investigation is required by independent third parties who aren't being paid to produce a specific result. This means that results that do not agree with the "consensus" are not to be studiously ignored, unless failure to adhere to the scientific method or experimental errors are discovered. The Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling long before evidence of humans existed. It's happened when CO2 levels were much higher and much lower than they are today. Someone needs to conduct some experiments to explain how that happened.

After we suck all the carbon out of the air and the plants start dying, the partisans will still be claiming that we hate the environment. That's pretty funny since either way, we're still changing our environment. Somehow, a colder world with less plant food is more preferable to a warmer world with more plant food, therefore the ability to support more life. All that because previous generations of idiots built things near, at, or below sea level and thought nothing of it... They're still doing it. That has to make you wonder.

louis · 2018-06-15 17:15:28

There are several issues wrapped up here and I agree the idiot consensus promoted by the virtue signallers is incapable of unwrapping them.

There is the AGW/carbon thesis issue. I am not hugely convinced it's real. Climate scientists really don't have a good idea of how climate works beyond some general ideas. If they did have a good idea they would be able to predict average temperatures, rainfall etc for any particular year with a lot of accuracy. They can't.

Then there are the myriad claims made by AGW virtue signallers...that polar bears are dying out, that Antarctica is melting, that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear within a few years, that sea levels will rise by 3 metres in a century, that there are now more hurricanes than ever before, that humanity's continued existence is under threat... You have to examine all these claims very closely to see if they are true. Most turn out not to be true.

Then there is an as yet unanswered question...is global warming that bad? We've had warmer periods within written history. Warmer means wetter means more vegetation (exactly what satellite photos show) means higher crop yields. Yes there are some parts of the world that will be losers but that is true of any climate change and climate is and always has been changing all the time.

A related question then arises: are there technical solutions to carbon emissions? Green virtue signallers don't like the idea that there might be a technical solution.

Then there is air pollution. Carbon fuels are the worst offenders when it comes to air pollution. This is a serious issue, which we understand a lot better. Green energy can be effective in reducing pollution, although green activists overlook tyre wear pollution which is worse in heavy electric vehicles.

Energy independence is another issue. I like the idea that my country can produce its own energy and be independent of other countries that might otherwise seek to blackmail us by threatening to cut off our energy supply. Both Russia and the Middle East Oligarchs have used that tactic.

Then there is the economic issue. How economic is green energy? My view is that in some parts of the world it is already the cheapest form of energy and will soon conquer the whole energy market, within 20 years, thus depriving all the green virtue signallers of their favourite pasttime.

kbd512 wrote:

Void,
It's in "Rules for Radicals". Pick an issue, fix it, polarize it, and then claim anything you like about people who don't support your viewpoint. They'll claim you're "anti-science", "anti-this", "anti-that", or simply start in with yawn-inducing insults and threats to avoid any real debate about their asinine ideas. Ultimately, the people making such claims are simply "anti-human" communists or anarchists who wish to pit brother against brother so they can use the ever-increasing power of the state to rob everyone else blind without anyone paying attention to what they're doing. Neither their vitriolic language, tactics, or agenda fool people like myself who do this "damn fool thing", as George Carlin put it, called "thinking for myself". It's also why they keep changing the tactics and language they use and keep trying to redefine the common meaning of the words they use to mean things that they don't.
First it was "global cooling", then it was "global warming", and now it's "climate change". I think it's just "anthropogenic global stupidity" from political partisan children with more anger than intelligence who lack the insight to admit to themselves that we know a lot less about the way the world works than we think we do. My favorite is the "scientific consensus" arguments. Science is not democratic and consensus means very little, as history has shown. That's how religion works and there's nothing scientific about it. There was a consensus in Nazi Germany. We all know how that ended, so perhaps rigid ideological adherence is not a laudable character trait. Our wiser forefathers stated that you should always support your fellow countrymen and your government only when it deserves it. There is nothing even remotely approaching infallibility as it pertains to government or science, therefore most things that come from both should be taken with a mountain of salt.
True scientists question everything, including their own beliefs and experimental results. When their hypothesis or models don't agree with observed data, their brains should go into overdrive trying to figure out why. Science was not political before political partisans started using it as a tool to push their anti-human agendas and conclusions from results are not derived by consensus belief about the results, which is not math-based and therefore not reason-based. If something doesn't mathematically compute, a rigorous investigation is required by independent third parties who aren't being paid to produce a specific result. This means that results that do not agree with the "consensus" are not to be studiously ignored, unless failure to adhere to the scientific method or experimental errors are discovered. The Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling long before evidence of humans existed. It's happened when CO2 levels were much higher and much lower than they are today. Someone needs to conduct some experiments to explain how that happened.
After we suck all the carbon out of the air and the plants start dying, the partisans will still be claiming that we hate the environment. That's pretty funny since either way, we're still changing our environment. Somehow, a colder world with less plant food is more preferable to a warmer world with more plant food, therefore the ability to support more life. All that because previous generations of idiots built things near, at, or below sea level and thought nothing of it... They're still doing it. That has to make you wonder.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-15 17:40:04

Prove or disprove but do not falsify the data and make corelations that can not be supported by data regarding the name thats not the issue as thats the politics.

Void · 2018-06-15 21:20:59

It is good that someone suggested that a problem existed. It is bad that some organizational tendencies which are against the primacy of the technological human race and stimulated the verbal human race to attempt to re-organize society into totalitarian behaviors occurred. However it is not the first time. But it appears that the technological human race will win out, by doing what they do.

As for North America, we get a lot of free-bees. We have hydrocarbons, but will also have all the technology that necessity imposes on other cultures for invention. Fair? Well, just the way it may be. Obviously the Canadians have done something, and I am sure the USA culture has as well.

I think that North American cities will likely have electric cars with the 20% batteries, and the electrified roads, like Europe and East Asia, ect.

But I expect that the more rural areas will need the 100% battery cars, and perhaps if indeed Carbon capture to fuel from the air does work out, then no problem with having some internal combustion cars.

As North America seems one of the core places where advanced spaceflight will be promoted, then it is all good for that reason as well.

Interesting some of these technologies, maybe most of them may have applications on Mars.

I suspect that on Earth, Mars, and most places, producing structure from Carbon will become more common as the ability to do so expands.

This could indeed make the Carbon in the atmosphere precious to societies which would benefit from extracting it rather than buying it from Carbon producers. (Coal, Petroleum, Nat. Gas, Etc.)

Hmmm....A Carbon economy. How much Carbon is there in the atmosphere of Venus?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-15 21:33:43)

GW Johnson · 2018-06-15 23:12:10

In a gross conceptual sense, climate is determined by the levels of insolation, atmospheric density and composition as they affect re-radiation from the surface back to space, the surface reflectances and the cloud reflectances, the heat escaping from the interior of the planet, the average levels of volcanism as they affect atmosphere and ocean composition, and a whole host of other things.

You cannot deny the laboratory measurements of air transmissibility of infrared radiation. Adding CO2, CH4, extra H2O vapor, and any of several other things change IR transmissibility significantly. That's just data. You are entitled to your opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts. It's a real, quantifiable effect.

I quite agree that climate modeling is no better than weather modeling, and neither can be trusted that much. Actually, the climate guys do somewhat better than the weather guys, because the climate guys are dealing in averages only, while the weather guys have to deal in highly-variable specifics. But even so, it suffers from too many assumptions, because the grids we can handle in computers cannot be made fine enough to model the real effects. Plus, some of the effects, like cloud reflectances, are still poorly understood at best.

Which is why I do not base my take on AGW from temperature proxies or any sort of climate modeling. I look at geologic records and ice behavior. But that's another topic.

What's at issue here is the amount of carbon cycling through the biosphere, ocean, and atmosphere. We need some, or we'd freeze. Too much is also bad: we get too warm. Surprise surprise, it's just like in the Goldilocks story: it needs to be "just right".

Here's the trouble: we've been digging up carbon that has been sequestered away from the cycling by burial for hundreds of millions of years, and releasing it over the span of 3 centuries, at an exponentially-accelerating rate.

We have affected the composition of the atmosphere: the Keeling curve collected at Hawaii since 1958 shows that quite clearly. It's data, you cannot deny it. Remember, your are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Besides the other pollution burning fossil fuels produces, the pollution of the atmosphere with extra carbon not seen in eons is a real effect. According to simple thermal re-radiation physics, the surface has to warm as the CO2 rises in order to maintain the energy balance. That's what AGW is.

Is this bad? Depends upon how much ice on land that the warmth melts, because that melt raises sea levels. How much and how fast we can debate, but something already is going on. The consequences depend upon how fast and how high, too. Because half of humanity and most of its relatively-immovable high-value assets lie within 3 meters of current sea level. Could be a nuisance, could be catastrophic. That's the debate.

What do we do about it, if anything? That depends partly upon how bad you think the consequences will be, partly on how fast you think those consequences will happen, and partly on what technological things we have available that we might employ. And in large part upon not doing unintended damage with whatever action you select.

Switching from fossil fuels to some other energy source would help reverse this. But only over very long time scales, as diffusion science and chemistry teach us that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 3 centuries. If you do it too fast, you kill people for lack of energy, too. The renewables are not yet ready to shoulder the full load.

I rather think that whatever might happen is going to happen anyway, and our mitigation efforts are at best a delaying action. In other words, I think we're already past the tipping point, but that's just my opinion. However, regardless, mitigation efforts buy more time to move people and high-value assets to higher ground.

What you don't want is a fast catastrophic sea level rise, and the geologic records say that such really can happen. Too fast, and we as a civilization cannot cope. In that event, civilization crashes, which means technological industrial agriculture crashes. Primitive agriculture is only capable of supporting a population 10% the current size. 9 out of 10 of us will perish. That's the worst case.

So what's more important to you? The money associated with business-as-usual, or the billions of lives to be lost?

That's my acid test for ethics, by the way: what matters more? Money or lives?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-06-15 23:32:24)

kbd512 · 2018-06-16 08:18:10

Louis,

I'm 100% convinced that better energy production and storage methods are better and you will never hear me argue for why we should not use them to the best of our ability to do so. Waste is not a virtue, never was, and never will be. I expend my own efforts on ways to "re-use" the electromagnetic energy in electrical motors and generators to improve their efficiency, rather than attacking people who use the energy resources that are available until better technology is both available and affordable.

I'm also 100% convinced that all portable electronics, motor vehicles, and light aircraft will eventually be powered by batteries or super capacitors and solar panels as a function of the extreme cost reduction and efficiency possible with all-electric technology. At present, we're just not quite there yet. Give us another 10 years and we'll "be there" in spades. The ships, submarines, and heavy aircraft will continue to require jet engines until true high temperature superconductors become commercially available. We finally synthesized Stanene this year, a true room temperature topological electrical insulator, which is another way of saying it conducts electricity with 100% efficiency but is not truly superconducting in the classical sense of the word. That's the type of tech needed to power 100% of civilization with electric motors and generators. The basic technology is already here.

The Magnax electrical motors have demonstrated 15kW/kg in non-superconducting brushless axial flux designs with straight copper and permanent magnets and 8kW/kg to 9kW/kg continuous output. The continuous vs maximum output is only a function of heating, rather than any limitation of the motor itself. That's a 50% better power-to-weight ratio than a GE90 turbofan engine. That's mind blowing takeoff power for a light aircraft. A young teenager could easily lift a light aircraft motor with one hand. Technology is most definitely improving at an astonishing pace, but it's not happening "fast enough" to please our "green warriors". The principal limitation is battery and super capacitor technology, which is also rapidly improving now that everyone in the world is working on it. If the battery technology improves to 1kW/kg at a reasonable cost, you won't find a passenger vehicle or light aircraft with a gas powered motor as a function of cost.

We're not even close to maxing out electric motor power-to-weight ratios using permanent magnets, either. The new iron-nitride permanent magnets made from common iron and nitrogen will roughly double the energy product of rare earth permanent magnets, doubling the power-to-weight ratio of electric motors before room temperature topological electrical insulators are required for further performance improvement.

As for the future of power production, solar and wind are opportunistic power sources. There's nothing wrong with exploiting them in an opportunistic manner, but the best use of those technologies is for localized power production to level grid demand. The backbone of the grid of the future should be molten salt fission reactors that use suspended U233 (irradiated Th232) fuel particles to consume 99%+ of the energy content of the fuel and produce little to none of the long-lived actinide wastes that come from consumption of U235 and Pu239 fuels. As humanity expands into space, continuous output nuclear electrical power production technologies are required to meet demand.

Apart from better technology, there is absolutely no need to turn governments in capitalist societies into communist dystopias, to the detriment of humanity and human technological progress. Nothing worthwhile has ever come from those totalitarian endeavors to "control" people. The people of the Soviet Union simply gave up and decided to get drunk off their rear ends instead of showing up to work. The people of China are more industrious and willing to work, but only the technology and generosity of the western world and capitalism gave them lives worth living. China has nothing on the US or the rest of the western world. China didn't invent center pivot irrigation, didn't make affordable private transportation widely available, didn't create widely available computer and cellular communications technologies and global positioning technologies, would never have dreamed of giving their people a global knowledge sharing infrastructure in the form of the internet, hasn't produced a jet engine that lasts for 15,000+ hours of operation for commercial airliners to use for intercontinental transportation, nor any of the most impressive medical advances. The people who invented gunpowder and rockets couldn't figure out how to make a solid rocket motor with more than a coin toss chance of not exploding in flight until we gave them that technology. There is nothing to be learned from any form of totalitarianism except as a warning order regarding how not to govern ourselves.

My advice on the entire matter is to let technology run its course since it's already producing the results that the "green warriors" say they want, just not as fast as they think it should. If it was feasible for us to "go faster", we would be. We're not because there are real implementation issues that false claims and prognostication alone can't overcome. Here's a rather simple but profound parting thought. No pilot or driver I know of likes paying for gas and all of them complain about the cost. If they thought a better product was available and affordable, they'd use it and not think twice about it. Since the technology is already taking us where we want to go, just let it happen and it will.

Void · 2018-06-16 08:41:57

I would support the previous, appreciate some new information, and add, that per "Elon Musk" (If I do not distort what he has said):

Electric Cars are valuable for cutting back on Carbon emissions, and for energy efficiency even without "Alternative Energy". In North America at least this implies electric power plants burning Natural Gas, which is of course a relative reduction in Carbon emissions. That likely includes Canada, USA, Mexico, and presumably for a time Natural Gas lines may go south beyond Mexico.

A power plant can be tuned up much better for getting the maximum energy for fuel burned than a internal combustion car. Therefore even without solar or wind, the electric car method powered from combustion power plants, is worthwhile.

On top of that the power up during driving from electric road tracks will reduce inertia from batteries from 100% Batteries to ~20%, which will be an energy saving. Also, it will reduce the needed size of the "Box" needed to house the batteries and the passengers. Therefore less wind drag.

The roads themselves presumably will cost more, but an individual driver with a low income would be more likely to be able to afford a car with less batteries, less energy consumption. Therefore an individual incentive to go electric.

And of course I have mentioned that most nations on the face of the Earth have a incentive of economic and national nature, to not be dependent on foreign energy supplies.

So, I guess the main point is almost all the incentives are in the right direction to please the "Greens".

Does this end well? We will see (If we are here).

I can guarantee however, that if we allow Verbal and Violent looters to get control of the society they will leave us dirty and hungry on a garbage dump gasping for life.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-16 08:49:49)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-16 12:29:12

The cost of electric and hybird are being effected by the new tarrifs making them nearly unaffordable ($20,000 & up) to middle to lower class which have the largest group of drivers.

https://www.caranddriver.com/best-hybrid-electric-cars
http://www.nadaguides.com/cars/Hybrid-Electric-Cars
http://www.hybridcars.com/top-5-cheapest-hybrid-cars/

Toyota Prius c $19,905. 53 mpg city, 46 mpg hwy.
Honda CR-Z $20,965. 36 mpg city, 39 mpg hwy.
Ford C-Max. $24,995 42 mpg city, 37 mpg hwy.
Honda Civic Hybrid $25,555. 44 mpg city, 47 mph hwy.

Hybrid Vehicles: The WORST of Both Worlds?

Therefore, new full battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will largely exist at the high end of the market—e.g., the all-electric Jaguar I-PACE: Base MSRP from $69,500, 240-mile range advertised (Jaguar USA, 2018). On the other hand, hybrids will flood the mass market—e.g., the 2018 Ford Fusion Energi: Base MSRP from $33,120, 21-mile all-electric range; and the 2018 Toyota Prius Prime: Base MSRP $27,100, 25-mile all-electric range) (Ayre, 2018)

Rising gas prices, tax breaks boost electric cars, but charging a hassle

Void · 2018-06-16 14:09:13

Well, that is veering off to the side a bit. If you want to invest the time, I would suggest that you look up video's by Peter Zeihan, 2018.

I recall that G.W. has advised me not to trust him. Well some of what he says is quite interesting. We shall see how accurate.

Anyway as to free trade, it boils down to this by his account.

The USA was the only one left which was not devastated by WWII. So, in order to keep the Soviet Union in check, we offered to our allies, a deal called Bretton Woods, for free trade. The deal was they could export to our markets, and our navy would protect their maritime traffic. What they gave in return was an alliance with us against the Soviet Union.

Later, the former Axis powers were admitted to the deal.

Finally China was admitted.

Finally the Soviet Union and it's block dissolved.

For a period since then we have continued with our obligations of the deal, while the members no longer held up their obligations as well as we might have wanted. Supposedly the USA does not depend on foreign trade very much. Especially since We/North America are now so energy independent.

So, we are paying to police the ocean traffic of the world, and keeping our markets open largely for no benefit to ourselves.

Demographically Russia, and Europe are no threat to us. Of course there are a number of nations on the face of the Earth that could ruin everybody's day, if they became insane, were tempted to aggression, or provoked to aggression.

But the thinking is basically the USA can go back to a Mercantile method, and be better off at this point.

The nations that really need free trade are China, Germany, Korea, and some others. Brazil needs financial support. India does not care. Their demographics are such that they don't need free trade very much.

Russia, I think is not quite within Peter Zeihan's grasp of understanding however. I would be really surprised if they needed to do the military adventures that he thinks they will. Well, maybe I will really be surprised. I think he does not properly understand the Scandinavian<>Slovic Mentality. Not so much the same as say the club Med. Where the one uses money to get the jewels, the other gets the jewels to have money. Maybe I am screwed up on that we shall see. In other words, the Russians can probably function very well under economic circumstances that would scare the heck out of club Med.

They are after all warriors.

......

As for the USA, he says the baby boomers are becoming "Get off my lawn! conservatives".
The Millennials? 45% voted for Trump he says. They are not happy about not getting a trophy anymore for pooping. (He said that).

Peter Zeihan predicts that Trump is the most international president we will get in our lifetimes. The next ones will be even more populist.

......
......

The above if it is true is incidental. If you believe that the forces that shape it cannot be significantly altered with leftist words, then it is a factor to live with, and adapt to.

As for Electric cars and free trade and energy, if nationalism and mercantilism rises, then nations and groups will become more locally conscious and will make great efforts, to protect their economies. If they don't have petroleum, natural gas, Coal, then they will need to go deep into alternative energy and electric cars. Most likely they will pirate or share ideas from each other.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-16 14:28:16)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-16 16:27:16

Trade ended up being trade due to the devaluation of the dollar, rising inflation and lower quality for that dollar when it was time to buy a product. While tarrifs are meant to equalize the dollars value in the US when buying an not made in the USA product it actually has not done that.

The factories that did made products have all but closed in many fields from textiles plus products made from it, paper plus products made from it, electronic technology products as parts cost more to import than to buy a complete product of the same pieces, metals mining to manufacturing of them for purity, which went into the mining as to make it cheap was a danger to people as well as to evironment for short cuts to lower cost production, ....

Devaluation, Tariffs, inflation mean we are headed for some hard times again....

Void · 2018-06-16 18:10:53

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

Devaluation, Tariffs, inflation mean we are headed for some hard times again....

Probably hard times again, but maybe not so much in the USA. Per Peter Zeihan, we are the best situated place on the planet.

Apparently the Chinese are baffled by the supposed western existence of a "Man who wants to rule the world".
https://www.bing.com/search?q=david+bow … lang=en-US

Supposedly they would not want to be given "A man who wants to rule the world".
Quote:

You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you men who want to rule the world

I don't think the USA wants to rule the world. We are tired of the idea.

Per Peter Zeihan, we are going to abandon, are abandoning the Persian Gulf, leaving the locals to figure out who should be in charge. (Won't be pretty).

Poor China has lots of trouble. Their demographics are terrible at this point, and Mexico has better trained and cheaper labor.

On top of that the USA may no longer guarantee the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to East Asia.

Per Peter Zeihan, there is nobody to take our place. Locally some powers will rise. France for instance.

He also argues that the E.U. will collapse. And I do not tend to agree that the Russians will be so aggressive as to seize parts of the E.U., but perhaps I will be wrong. If that were to occur, then the oil flow from Russia would be disrupted.

One thing he says that baffles me is that US oil will end up at one low price, and that the rest of the world will be paying twice the price. Well we will see.

Going back to the topic, though, it makes sense to me that in such an unstable world, it will be very important for East Asia and much of Europe, maybe Austrailia/NZ, to research and promote electric cars and electric roads.

......

I really will not argue morality in this, it either will happen or not, and I am not an advocate of the status quo, or change.
I will say that it was annoying that we kept the party going, and then there was so much talk about the BRIC countries superseding us.

Brazil is a mess. Russia and China's demographics stink. India is interesting but Peter Zeihan thinks it will be as it always has been.

China however has it's new Mao already, because they know what is coming and know it has to be that way.

Peter Zeihan claims that the same thing would have happened under Hillary Clinton, but at a slower pace.

Like Peter Zeihan, I am rather surprised about going after Canada and Mexico, but maybe that is a bargaining ploy.

Don't know.

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-06-16 18:43:14)

louis · 2018-06-16 19:31:44

I am in general agreement with what you write. Certainly technological advancement is providing all the answers we need. The "green panic" isn't helpful, as it tends to divert resources into unproductive areas, rather than letting people sort out the most direct routes. I do think the State needs to be involved in nurturing this technology. But it can do that best by rational consideration of what is likely to be the most productive investment.

As for thorium reactors, we hear a lot about them, but we've yet to see the technology in action. I would be sceptical that it could beat solar plus storage on price in a couple of decades. Solar plus storage has an incredibly low requirement for human intervention. I think that will probably be the decisive factor - the low human labour input.

Once the economics of solar plus storage start kicking in, lots of things become possible. For instance, countries in higher latitudes could find it pays to send out huge "oil tanker" sized vessels with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board towing trawler-like PV panel arrays to equatorial regions, where they would charge up and then return to the country of origin where the energy would be discharged. They could return with 100 GWhs of power. A PV Battery ship could get charged up in 3 days with about 64 sq. kms. of PV array around it. Thin film PV makes this v. doable. In those circumstances the whole of the UK electricity supply could probably be serviced by 30 such vessels.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I'm 100% convinced that better energy production and storage methods are better and you will never hear me argue for why we should not use them to the best of our ability to do so. Waste is not a virtue, never was, and never will be. I expend my own efforts on ways to "re-use" the electromagnetic energy in electrical motors and generators to improve their efficiency, rather than attacking people who use the energy resources that are available until better technology is both available and affordable.
I'm also 100% convinced that all portable electronics, motor vehicles, and light aircraft will eventually be powered by batteries or super capacitors and solar panels as a function of the extreme cost reduction and efficiency possible with all-electric technology. At present, we're just not quite there yet. Give us another 10 years and we'll "be there" in spades. The ships, submarines, and heavy aircraft will continue to require jet engines until true high temperature superconductors become commercially available. We finally synthesized Stanene this year, a true room temperature topological electrical insulator, which is another way of saying it conducts electricity with 100% efficiency but is not truly superconducting in the classical sense of the word. That's the type of tech needed to power 100% of civilization with electric motors and generators. The basic technology is already here.
The Magnax electrical motors have demonstrated 15kW/kg in non-superconducting brushless axial flux designs with straight copper and permanent magnets and 8kW/kg to 9kW/kg continuous output. The continuous vs maximum output is only a function of heating, rather than any limitation of the motor itself. That's a 50% better power-to-weight ratio than a GE90 turbofan engine. That's mind blowing takeoff power for a light aircraft. A young teenager could easily lift a light aircraft motor with one hand. Technology is most definitely improving at an astonishing pace, but it's not happening "fast enough" to please our "green warriors". The principal limitation is battery and super capacitor technology, which is also rapidly improving now that everyone in the world is working on it. If the battery technology improves to 1kW/kg at a reasonable cost, you won't find a passenger vehicle or light aircraft with a gas powered motor as a function of cost.
We're not even close to maxing out electric motor power-to-weight ratios using permanent magnets, either. The new iron-nitride permanent magnets made from common iron and nitrogen will roughly double the energy product of rare earth permanent magnets, doubling the power-to-weight ratio of electric motors before room temperature topological electrical insulators are required for further performance improvement.
As for the future of power production, solar and wind are opportunistic power sources. There's nothing wrong with exploiting them in an opportunistic manner, but the best use of those technologies is for localized power production to level grid demand. The backbone of the grid of the future should be molten salt fission reactors that use suspended U233 (irradiated Th232) fuel particles to consume 99%+ of the energy content of the fuel and produce little to none of the long-lived actinide wastes that come from consumption of U235 and Pu239 fuels. As humanity expands into space, continuous output nuclear electrical power production technologies are required to meet demand.
Apart from better technology, there is absolutely no need to turn governments in capitalist societies into communist dystopias, to the detriment of humanity and human technological progress. Nothing worthwhile has ever come from those totalitarian endeavors to "control" people. The people of the Soviet Union simply gave up and decided to get drunk off their rear ends instead of showing up to work. The people of China are more industrious and willing to work, but only the technology and generosity of the western world and capitalism gave them lives worth living. China has nothing on the US or the rest of the western world. China didn't invent center pivot irrigation, didn't make affordable private transportation widely available, didn't create widely available computer and cellular communications technologies and global positioning technologies, would never have dreamed of giving their people a global knowledge sharing infrastructure in the form of the internet, hasn't produced a jet engine that lasts for 15,000+ hours of operation for commercial airliners to use for intercontinental transportation, nor any of the most impressive medical advances. The people who invented gunpowder and rockets couldn't figure out how to make a solid rocket motor with more than a coin toss chance of not exploding in flight until we gave them that technology. There is nothing to be learned from any form of totalitarianism except as a warning order regarding how not to govern ourselves.
My advice on the entire matter is to let technology run its course since it's already producing the results that the "green warriors" say they want, just not as fast as they think it should. If it was feasible for us to "go faster", we would be. We're not because there are real implementation issues that false claims and prognostication alone can't overcome. Here's a rather simple but profound parting thought. No pilot or driver I know of likes paying for gas and all of them complain about the cost. If they thought a better product was available and affordable, they'd use it and not think twice about it. Since the technology is already taking us where we want to go, just let it happen and it will.

RobertDyck · 2018-06-16 20:22:42

Just one company... Thorium Power Canada
Wikipedia list, multiple countries: Thorium-based nuclear power projects

Void · 2018-06-16 21:32:05

Well, some clever stuff!

Battery boats. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. And why wouldn't the British go that direction? Have you looked at "Flow Batteries? Pollution hazard perhaps, but then again if a boat with Lithium batteries sank, it might be a source of pollution for a long time, or a target of salvage.

I realize that I can be annoying, as I always look at how to modify an already good idea. It's not really that I want to be a topper. I like technology. It excites me.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea
Quote:

The Sargasso Sea (/sɑːrˈɡæsoʊ/) is a region of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by four currents forming an ocean gyre.[1] Unlike all other regions called seas, it has no land boundaries.[2][3][4] It is distinguished from other parts of the Atlantic Ocean by its characteristic brown Sargassum seaweed and often calm blue water.[1]

Could we have some palm trees and hotels on these solar platforms?

A consortium of Atlantic powers, but the Latin Americans and North Africans may be less interested as they have powerful solar options at home.

Thorium? Well Canada. Yes rather cool there often Robert.

Louis, I think the answer about agriculture and global warming (In a very previous post), is that the western continental North America has lands in Alberta, BC, Yukon, and Alaska which would be rather farmable as the soil was not scraped out that much by glaciers. That is if things got warmer.
For farming in more southern locations of North America, the crops farmed would have to be different than that now.

For Eurasia, it is hard for me to say. I know that if the wheat belt moved north, it would be inconvenient for the Russians as their transportation is set up for where it is now. But again they have a lot of Siberia in which the soil was not scraped off by the ice age. I think???

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

Hmmm...Not sure about BC and Alberta soils anymore. Alaska and Yukon look good though. Just warm them up.

Mostly the Canadian Shield (Where I was born and grew up), is where the soil is not so good because of the ice age.

Spacenut I don't seem to be able to put an image on my posts anymore. Any information on that?

Last edited by Void (2018-06-16 21:51:21)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-16 21:50:24

Some images cannot be displayed in certain browsers and some links will not do so in what is called a hot link mode as it uses a script to make it viewable and some file extensions will only display once you view them by viewing the page..

check out the example format of the line to make an image appears:
Help Links and Images

Void · 2018-06-16 21:53:50

FluxBB bbcode test

Thanks, that works for the test. I will see if I can puzzle it out from here.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-16 21:56:16)

louis · 2018-06-17 16:50:46

I am sure there are some areas to the north which will be more productive than others as the climate warms. But we know for instance that in the middle ages people were able to engage in dairy and arable farming successfully in Greenland. There are a lot of rivers that run north in Russia. The Soviet Union used to have plans for turning them round so they went south (I remember that as the first "climate scare" from my youth because people thought, probably rightly, that would destabilise the whole planetary climate system). But presumably there are some alluvial plains to the north.

Void wrote:

Well, some clever stuff!
Battery boats. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. And why wouldn't the British go that direction? Have you looked at "Flow Batteries? Pollution hazard perhaps, but then again if a boat with Lithium batteries sank, it might be a source of pollution for a long time, or a target of salvage.
I realize that I can be annoying, as I always look at how to modify an already good idea. It's not really that I want to be a topper. I like technology. It excites me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea
Quote:
The Sargasso Sea (/sɑːrˈɡæsoʊ/) is a region of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by four currents forming an ocean gyre.[1] Unlike all other regions called seas, it has no land boundaries.[2][3][4] It is distinguished from other parts of the Atlantic Ocean by its characteristic brown Sargassum seaweed and often calm blue water.[1]
Could we have some palm trees and hotels on these solar platforms?
A consortium of Atlantic powers, but the Latin Americans and North Africans may be less interested as they have powerful solar options at home.
Thorium? Well Canada. Yes rather cool there often Robert.
Louis, I think the answer about agriculture and global warming (In a very previous post), is that the western continental North America has lands in Alberta, BC, Yukon, and Alaska which would be rather farmable as the soil was not scraped out that much by glaciers. That is if things got warmer.
For farming in more southern locations of North America, the crops farmed would have to be different than that now.
For Eurasia, it is hard for me to say. I know that if the wheat belt moved north, it would be inconvenient for the Russians as their transportation is set up for where it is now. But again they have a lot of Siberia in which the soil was not scraped off by the ice age. I think???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
Hmmm...Not sure about BC and Alberta soils anymore. Alaska and Yukon look good though. Just warm them up.
Mostly the Canadian Shield (Where I was born and grew up), is where the soil is not so good because of the ice age.
Spacenut I don't seem to be able to put an image on my posts anymore. Any information on that?

Void · 2018-06-17 19:43:15

Let me make sure it is understood, that I am not that much in favor of purposely doing such a thing unless there were good reasons.

Someone like George Church who I admire, would be very uncomfortable with the idea.

......

However I subscribe to the notion that we have an opportunity for anywhere from 0-200 years I think to get into space, and get substitution resources for the human population.

Most of the critics of space presume such as those who think Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, should focus on fixing the Earth rather than going into space, don't understand that the privileged life of resources they enjoy is temporary. The fuels will run out, the metals will run out, and the more stressed out the human population in general gets, the more likely that we will have a civilizational interruption like a world war or something like Easter Island.

So, I am flexible in my thinking. We do not know how things will unfold as time passes, and just as thinking of the 70's is not proper for now, thinking now is not something to lock in on for the duration of time.

Our purpose has to be to keep as stable a civilization on Earth capable of reaching into space as is possible for as long as possible. The great hope is that feedback will occur where space resources will allow human technological civilization to persist indefinitely into the future.

The ones who are of the stay on Earth mentality are demons although they do not comprehend that fact. They will lead the human race to sorrow only.

Therefore, if it were necessary to allow potential northern farm lands to warm sufficiently to keep a space effort going I would support that. Particularly if the warming could not be prevented anyway.

However, I am optimistic that various better methods will prevent the need for that.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-17 19:45:01)

GW Johnson · 2018-06-18 09:09:40

Well, it is the change that is disruptive. As the world warms, and sea levels change, weather and rainfall patterns shift. Old agricultural places fail, and new ones become available. All this happens completely ignoring national boundaries. That's the change, and why it is disruptive. Myself, I am pessimistic about how well we humans will deal with that. We don't seem to deal well with other disruptive things far smaller in effect.

Got a bit more conversation than you expected, huh, Void?

GW

Void · 2018-06-18 11:41:49

Oh, I don't mind.
Quote GW:

Well, it is the change that is disruptive. As the world warms, and sea levels change, weather and rainfall patterns shift. Old agricultural places fail, and new ones become available. All this happens completely ignoring national boundaries. That's the change, and why it is disruptive. Myself, I am pessimistic about how well we humans will deal with that. We don't seem to deal well with other disruptive things far smaller in effect.
Got a bit more conversation than you expected, huh, Void?
GW

I did say this in my last post:

However I subscribe to the notion that we have an opportunity for anywhere from 0-200 years I think to get into space, and get substitution resources for the human population.

So, I think we live our lives sitting on a time bomb, we just can't know when it will go off.

The only thing we can do wrong is give up and stop trying. When I see a couple of advances that may pay off, it helps me cope with sitting on a time bomb.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-18 11:45:40)

Void · 2018-06-18 12:15:09

That was a cheap dodge on my part, so I will give you some stuff to knock about.

I see you guys are slapping it up in several of the "Adult" sections.

Um what do you think about these things?

-While I see that BFR/BFS can just get it's fingertips on Mars, I really think it could do well in several places other than that. I am leaving aside the Starlink thing, and the point to point rich piggy, transport on the surface of the Earth.

1) The Moon. At last we can get a data point on human physiology on the Moon. It should tell us a lot about what parts of zero gravity physical problems can easily be handled and which cannot. For instance, for blood pooling which is the one that concerns me a lot. Is blood pooling directly proportional to gravity reduction? Is there a curve instead?

For space exercising, does a little gravity help only a little or a lot for bones and muscle. Again, are the results proportional?

Stuff like that.

2) I really am impressed with the idea that fuel can become cheaper in LEO per SpaceX and Blue Origin. But am very curious about solid goods delivered to LEO. That is are we on the edge where not only might starlink be constructed in LEO, but actual synthetic gravity habitats? What about Lunar and NEO/NEA resources for that. A combination of contributions as most sensible for all of those?

So, having the data from the Moon about human physiology in 1/6 g, then with other tricks could we find the formula for synthetic gravity which gives the 'Mostest' for the "Leastest'?

My wish is to find a lower synthetic gravity which will prevent blood pooling in the upper body. If that is possible below 1 g, then do that and then see how your sanitation, and methods to maintain bone and muscle work out in those conditions.

Of course this would all take place in LEO (Except for materials from the Moon and NEA's), below the major Van Allan belts, so, leave the radiation issue somewhat aside for now).

3) Could you build a "TRANSFORMER" BFS? That would be launching a BFS to LEO, but having it disgorge it's guts from the Aeroshell at some point, and having the various parts disgorged re-configure to a shape which makes sense for landing on the Moon.
Two versions I see just now.

a) Dr. Zubrin similar: Leave the aeroshell and some of the engine/ect. behind in LEO, send the Transformed LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) to the Moon and back to LEO. Repackage the LEM into the aeroshell +. Shallow burn into the atmosphere and landing.

b) Bring the Aeroshell + to a higher orbit or lunar orbit, and then disgorge the LEM and have it Transform, and land, come back up get back into the Aeroshell + and of course head back to Earth for a high speed aeroburn and landing.

4) While I have your attention, and after you beat the heck out of 1-3, and are tired out from it, "What do you think about loading up a BFS Tanker in LEO with full fueling, and using it for a booster to push another BFS on it's way to say Mars"?

5) What do you think about BFS to LEO to bring up robotic spacecraft to access NEO/NEA's?

Well, now you have some stuff to chew me out on. :0

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-06-18 12:41:40)

kbd512 · 2018-06-18 13:50:05

louis wrote:

I am in general agreement with what you write. Certainly technological advancement is providing all the answers we need. The "green panic" isn't helpful, as it tends to divert resources into unproductive areas, rather than letting people sort out the most direct routes. I do think the State needs to be involved in nurturing this technology. But it can do that best by rational consideration of what is likely to be the most productive investment.

The governments of the world are heavily involved in the research of better batteries. NASA spends quite a lot of money on this technology. Thus far, no major breakthroughs have been commercialized. Every week, there's a new wild claim. Every year, not much happens. There's just been a slow and steady progression.

louis wrote:

As for thorium reactors, we hear a lot about them, but we've yet to see the technology in action. I would be sceptical that it could beat solar plus storage on price in a couple of decades. Solar plus storage has an incredibly low requirement for human intervention. I think that will probably be the decisive factor - the low human labour input.

If there was cheap and plentiful battery storage, we'd already be using it. There's not, so we don't. There are lots of false claims from our green warriors about lots of things more improbable than a better nuclear fuel. Even so, U233 fuel qualification trials are almost complete and the people who run nuclear reactors will start using it because it's cheaper, more plentiful, produces less waste, and the waste that is produced is far less challenging to adequately store.

Thorium Nuclear Fuel Tests Almost Complete and Successful

Picture of the ThMox fuel pellets that are nearing the end of their qualification run in the test reactor:

New generation thorium mixed oxide fuel pellets loaded into reactor for testing

louis wrote:

Once the economics of solar plus storage start kicking in, lots of things become possible. For instance, countries in higher latitudes could find it pays to send out huge "oil tanker" sized vessels with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board towing trawler-like PV panel arrays to equatorial regions, where they would charge up and then return to the country of origin where the energy would be discharged. They could return with 100 GWhs of power. A PV Battery ship could get charged up in 3 days with about 64 sq. kms. of PV array around it. Thin film PV makes this v. doable. In those circumstances the whole of the UK electricity supply could probably be serviced by 30 such vessels.

The economics of solar are already "kicking in". Germany is burning more coal than ever since they started shutting down their nuclear reactors. That was fairly predictable.

Regarding the battery ship, it sounds great but that's going to be the largest ship anyone has ever seen, bar none. The batteries alone are more than double the deadweight tonnage of the largest cargo ship ever built. A 64km^2 thin film array on a giant balloon is actually doable with current technology. How about just building the balloon and feeding the power into the grid? Or maybe just put the solar panels on land that is otherwise unusable, like the roof of a house, and skip all the theatrics?

Can vs should. Possible vs practical. Because money is still money. Anyway...

louis · 2018-06-18 17:03:01

I wouldn't say a 77% price reduction in battery storage in just six years (2010-2016) was "slow" progress. I would say that was pretty dramatic:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=graph … xWUhsuW5SM:

Looks like Germany's coal usage has been declining for the last couple of years...

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factshe … mix-charts

Yes, a balloon at 40K feet might be better.

There have been 500K tonne oil tanker ships, so the battery ship is not beyond possible - it's just an idea I've had. It might be unlikely to happen I accept!

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
I am in general agreement with what you write. Certainly technological advancement is providing all the answers we need. The "green panic" isn't helpful, as it tends to divert resources into unproductive areas, rather than letting people sort out the most direct routes. I do think the State needs to be involved in nurturing this technology. But it can do that best by rational consideration of what is likely to be the most productive investment.
The governments of the world are heavily involved in the research of better batteries. NASA spends quite a lot of money on this technology. Thus far, no major breakthroughs have been commercialized. Every week, there's a new wild claim. Every year, not much happens. There's just been a slow and steady progression.
louis wrote:
As for thorium reactors, we hear a lot about them, but we've yet to see the technology in action. I would be sceptical that it could beat solar plus storage on price in a couple of decades. Solar plus storage has an incredibly low requirement for human intervention. I think that will probably be the decisive factor - the low human labour input.
If there was cheap and plentiful battery storage, we'd already be using it. There's not, so we don't. There are lots of false claims from our green warriors about lots of things more improbable than a better nuclear fuel. Even so, U233 fuel qualification trials are almost complete and the people who run nuclear reactors will start using it because it's cheaper, more plentiful, produces less waste, and the waste that is produced is far less challenging to adequately store.
Thorium Nuclear Fuel Tests Almost Complete and Successful
Picture of the ThMox fuel pellets that are nearing the end of their qualification run in the test reactor:
New generation thorium mixed oxide fuel pellets loaded into reactor for testing
louis wrote:
Once the economics of solar plus storage start kicking in, lots of things become possible. For instance, countries in higher latitudes could find it pays to send out huge "oil tanker" sized vessels with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board towing trawler-like PV panel arrays to equatorial regions, where they would charge up and then return to the country of origin where the energy would be discharged. They could return with 100 GWhs of power. A PV Battery ship could get charged up in 3 days with about 64 sq. kms. of PV array around it. Thin film PV makes this v. doable. In those circumstances the whole of the UK electricity supply could probably be serviced by 30 such vessels.
The economics of solar are already "kicking in". Germany is burning more coal than ever since they started shutting down their nuclear reactors. That was fairly predictable.
Regarding the battery ship, it sounds great but that's going to be the largest ship anyone has ever seen, bar none. The batteries alone are more than double the deadweight tonnage of the largest cargo ship ever built. A 64km^2 thin film array on a giant balloon is actually doable with current technology. How about just building the balloon and feeding the power into the grid? Or maybe just put the solar panels on land that is otherwise unusable, like the roof of a house, and skip all the theatrics?
Can vs should. Possible vs practical. Because money is still money. Anyway...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-06-15 08:48:16

A happy Carbon loving future.

#2 2018-06-15 16:05:19

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#3 2018-06-15 16:52:01

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#4 2018-06-15 17:15:28

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#5 2018-06-15 17:40:04

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#6 2018-06-15 21:20:59

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#7 2018-06-15 23:12:10

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#8 2018-06-16 08:18:10

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#9 2018-06-16 08:41:57

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#10 2018-06-16 12:29:12

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#11 2018-06-16 14:09:13

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#12 2018-06-16 16:27:16

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#13 2018-06-16 18:10:53

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#14 2018-06-16 19:31:44

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#15 2018-06-16 20:22:42

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#16 2018-06-16 21:32:05

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#17 2018-06-16 21:50:24

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#18 2018-06-16 21:53:50

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#19 2018-06-17 16:50:46

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#20 2018-06-17 19:43:15

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#21 2018-06-18 09:09:40

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#22 2018-06-18 11:41:49

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#23 2018-06-18 12:15:09

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#24 2018-06-18 13:50:05

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

#25 2018-06-18 17:03:01

Re: A happy Carbon loving future.

Board footer