There are other threads that ostensibly pretend to be about the issue of energy, but I want to open a thread where the science and technology are actually discussed intellectually, if that's possible.  Humans have gone through multiple energy sources and we've been straddling fossil fuels and nuclear fission mostly for over a century now and it's clearly taken a toll on the earth's climate and environment.  The scientific consensus is that if this continues unabated, the earth will become quite inhospitable to humans.  So, understandably, we've been tinkering with other forms of energy.  Wind, solar, geothermal, ocean, fusion, biomass, maybe some others I can't think of right now.  Energy appears to be increasing in demand given the rising population and technological development around the globe.  So what is the best case scenario going forward?  What are the pitfalls?  What are the hail mary's?  I'm interested in real thoughts about technology and our future.

If you jump off a 100 story building - you're doing fine as you pass the 20th floor. Now you just need a good plan..........


....


Sometimes the Kobeashi Maru DOES win....

At work.

Yup. Innitially humans harnessed 'Physical' energy sources (Muscle, wind, water etc) then we developed the infrastructure and tech to harness chemical energy which is (Layman's term) a hundred times 'Denser' in delivering bounce per ounce and now we've got access to the power of the atom which is a hundred time's denser again.

I mean it would be 'Nice if we could build a few (Three equidistant) "Bean stalks" and tap the planet's magnetic field as a huge spark generator but that seems half a century away at least.

Conversly, lets get off this rock and go siphon the seas of hydrocarbons from Titan.

Cheers.

As the rest of the world catches up to the "West" in terms of technology and urban development, transportation will be a continuing problem to solve.  China, India and other countries in SE Asia are adding cars far faster than their Western counterparts and this will continue to add to carbon emissions far into the future.  The only way to curb this that we know of is the adoption of EVs and non-fossil fuel power plants.

At work.

Well.... there's also the possibility of adjusting urban planning. The classic "Arcologies" of Sci-Fi come to mind.

And/Or invest in trains, trams, taxis and 'Ubers' too boot to move people around.

Bring back the "Age of sail" ! Let's see great ships like the 'Tea clippers' racing the waves again!

(September 12, 2021 at 12:45 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

 Well.... there's also the possibility of adjusting urban planning. The classic "Arcologies" of Sci-Fi come to mind.

 And/Or invest in trains, trams, taxis and 'Ubers' too boot to move people around.

 Bring back the "Age of sail" ! Let's see great ships like the 'Tea clippers' racing the waves again!  

Compelling ideas but people are not keen on inconvenience.  I'm a big fan of mass transit but it just doesn't work well in non-urban areas, so it's kind of a non-starter.

There are a lot of disruptive ideas about transportation that have been suggested with the advent of automated vehicles.  Automated "Ubers" you could call them, but I don't see this as a reduction in energy use due to travel so much as a shift in vehicle ownership unless you could get people to ride share.  That could increase efficiency significantly, but people have always hated carpooling.

At work.

I wasn't thinking of 'Farming' type agrarian set ups. Just thinking that a better redesign of urban living space might go a good way to helping out the energy situation.

Cheers.

There's exactly one form of alternative energy that we know is capable of providing the level of energy we've been consuming:





The pitfalls would be storing the waste (that said, given that petroleum and coal's waste tends to go straight into our atmosphere, literally anything else would be better) and making sure that the plant builders don't cut corners, since it looks like all the major incidents at nuclear plants have been due to corners being cut.

The immediate future (meaning the lifetimes of the current members of this board) will most likely continue to be a hodgepodge of various energy sources, as there appear to be no breakthroughs on the horizon.

As time passes, it’s plain that fossil fuels will become less and less important. The further future will still be a hodgepodge, but it’ll be all renewables. I think we can forget about mining the gas giants and their moons, though. Fortunately, we don’t need to - there’s plenty of energy right here, we just need to exploit it better.

Boru

(September 12, 2021 at 1:07 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: There's exactly one form of alternative energy that we know is capable of providing the level of energy we've been consuming:


The pitfalls would be storing the waste (that said, given that petroleum and coal's waste tends to go straight into our atmosphere, literally anything else would be better) and making sure that the plant builders don't cut corners, since it looks like all the major incidents at nuclear plants have been due to corners being cut.

I support the use of nuclear fission.  The Fukushima and Chernobyl incidents weren't really about cost cutting, though.  Fukushima was due to a bad design, one which other plants also use, and Chernobyl was just plain human foolishness.  Blame it on the Ruskies being the Ruskies.

The 3-mile island incident was a combination of poor design and poor operating procedures.  Their backup systems were not sufficient and they didn't have adequate device status indications.  There are much, much higher standards for those things now than 30 years ago, even in places where there's no nuclear material.  Nuclear plant design and safety systems have come a very long way since these accidents and notably, we learn a great deal every time one occurs.

But nuclear fusion has far more potential to provide clean energy if we can ever get it past the vapor ware stage.