 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chicmac
Gaining a Reputation........
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 202
|
 Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| William_Cleland wrote: |
Getting from where we are now to a sustainable future with a comparable standard of living that is not based on the rapid exploitation of finite resources like fossil fuels and high grade uranium ore is potentially doable but no sure thing yet.
Nuclear fusion is still a long way off and a lot of work still needs to be done on the hydrogen storage technology that would be required to make renewables a viable replacement for fossil fuels in many contexts. If the world hits peak oil, peak coal and peak gas in the next 20 to 30 years as some are suggesting then Europe will be in very deep trouble. Other parts of the world like Russia and North America would be able to keep going longer with fossil fuels at a reduced level of consumption in the absence of an alternative but probably wouldn't be in a mood to share out scarce dwindling resources with anybody else. There are reasons why the EU countries push the Kyoto Protocol so hard, while others do not, that go well beyond levels of concern about the environment in other words.
Hopefully a new bout of exploration driven by higher prices will identify new resources and provide the time needed for a smooth transition in technology terms. On the bright side, the Brazilians seem to be making headway in that regard:-
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4680076&page=1 |
I think you are being too pessimistic.
Regarding hydrogen. It is not the technology which is the current stumbling block. Iceland runs its buses off of hydrogen produced by its geo-thermal energy resource. Car manufacturers have produced hydrogen cars of both the fuel cell and gasseous burn varieties. The hydrogen cylinders used for storage are actually smaller than petroleum tanks with the equivalent mileage range. While I would never describe such a young industry as optimised, it certainly has already been developed technologically to the point of usability.
The main current stumbling block with hydrogen is the cost of producing the fuel. However as the cost of fossil fuels rise, this changes. Also hydrogen production methods using GM algae and/or high temperature hydrolysis produced at off-peak times by nuclear installations should bring the costs of hydrogen production right down.
BTW where you say "Getting from where we are now to a sustainable future with a comparable standard of living that is not based on the rapid exploitation of finite resources like fossil fuels and high grade uranium ore is potentially doable but no sure thing yet." I disagree with as well. In fact I think that the more brakes we put on fossil fuel usage (via pricing and taxation) the faster will be the development of those other alternatives - financial incentive + capital for industry and government investment.
When the fuel cost cross-over point comes I think petroleum as a fuel use will quickly end.
Regarding fusion. The ITER project at Cadarache is due to come on line in 2015. It is expected to produce around 500MW with a Q of 5-10 and a sustained thermonuclear plasma lasting several minutes. It is also expected to proof of concept the 'burning' (self heating) capability theorised for the installation.
The roadmap for fusion (all going well i.e. the fast track roadmap) is that commercial reactors will be on line by 2050 with a full scale roll out by 2080. While there may be unforeseen problems that may impact negatively on this, there is also the fact that this road map has been produced without assumed input from China.
China only signed up about 6 months back. China, as you know has, and will soon have even more, massive amounts of money to spend, it also has virtually no nuclear power currently and has a massive and growing air-pollution problem. China will be very highly motivated to pursue this project, if not right now, soon.
In fact the multi-national pushed trade agreements between the West and China which have overseen the relocation of a huge portion of Western manufacturing to coal-fired China has been the single biggest contributor to Global GGE increase.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
William_Cleland
I really have nothing else to do!!!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 855
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chicmac
Gaining a Reputation........
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 202
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No problem. It was the Russian design tokamak containment system which made the 'breakthrough' (took over 40 years engineering though).
Yes the new-found scientific zeal (NOT) to get to the Moon is I suspect, down to the potential commercial value of the Lunar regolith (He-3 for fusion power and Titanium too may be commercially worth recovering.)
A few years ago this got the SF loonie-tunes treatment whenever it was brought up in public and derided as such by Government scientist spokespersons from all sides, meanwhile of course all the real strategic planning went on in secrecy. Now it is gradually coming out, but it is pathetic the way 'those in charge' always have a first instinct to keep anything major from the public. BTW, bizarrely it was the Chinese which came clean on their motivations first.
Are totalitarian States generally more or less honest than Hip-sorry-Dem-ocracies? - Discuss.
There are still new engineering problems to be solved regarding Hydrogen as a transport fuel. The fuel storage (Hydride tanks) and power generating side(fuel cell or gasseous burn) elements are OK, but can be improved, but one new issue which has not been addressed yet is the fact that the water emitted tends to become steam when it hits the air. Not a problem with the odd bus or so, but when an entire street of vehicles is H2 powered it may well generate a dense (and corrosive to ferric materials) fog, especially on cold days. Vehicles may have to have an inbuilt (as yet undeveloped) condenser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
