Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could write a treatise on this subject, and began to, but this possibly not the right forum. Suffice it to say that our sources of energy and usage of same will dramatically change in the relatively near future.
This will be a given, whether anyone likes it or not. Colorado more dependent than many. One of the principal reasons why is because globally we have used about half of all oil within planet Earth, or in any event that ever likely to be recovered. The result quite soon will be increasingly less supply at greater cost, exponentially so. With such a huge amount of energy in this resource we often take for granted, other forms of energy will have to take its place, or we go without.
Coal is one such option, if with some serious downsides. Despite marketing hype, there is nothing 'clean' about it, and it shouldn't take the sight of entire mountains being razed in West Virginia to convince one of that. Like oil, use of this fossil fuel is causing our planet to warm. If another subject, it can still be recognized that to date use of this fuel results in the discharge of huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And even if willing to suffer the environmental degradation involved in mining, not all sources are as viable as they seem. That derived from the tar sands of Canada is expensive. As is that from much the same source in Colorado, being even more problematic due the large water requirements of processing. Chances are coal will increasingly be used on a global scale, to all our detriment, but probably also increasingly viewed as a resource whose use must be phased out as soon as possible. Moreover it is better suited to electricity generation than traditional forms of transport.
If with a certain promise, the reality of nuclear energy might best be viewed through the prism of Hanford, WA and France. Traditional thermal nuclear power plants are inefficient and create a large amount of highly radioactive waste with a very long life span. Hanford serves as one of the reminders in the world of just how badly polluted our environment can be in consequence. The concerns of plutonium and terrorism pale in comparison, and might actually be fairly well controlled. Even the ever present risk of accidental radioactive discharge is small in comparison to the intractable problem of the waste generated.
The French have been most proactive in trying to solve these problems, since they use nuclear power for such a high percentage of their electricity. But their experience has been mixed at best. A mantra often recited is that of recycling, but it remains an imperfect art. The French have possibly the most advanced recycling plant in the world at La Hague, using the Purex process, yet its achilles heal remains the need of breeder-reactors to use this reprocessed fuel. And it should be understood that even the most advanced recycling still results in a highly radioactive byproduct which must be disposed of, most likely buried. In theory a truly advanced breeder-reactor could operate in a near neutral state, requiring no new uranium, which at current usage levels will run out in 20 to 30 years, or even help in consuming some of the former waste generated. To date this remains theory. This technology first attempted by the Americans and Russians in the 1950's. More lately very seriously by the French, who finally abandoned the project in 1998 after the expenditure of $11.8 billion dollars.
This also highlighting another aspect of this technology, in that it can prove very expensive. With long lead times as well. But for now the inevitable and highly toxic waste remains the largest single problem. It might be considered that the US produces more than 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste a year. Thus far it has 64,000 metric tons of spent radioactive fuel rods needing disposal. The controversial Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada, just north of Las Vegas, is designed to hold no more than 77,000 metric tons. Thus by its earliest possible opening in 2017 it would already be oversubscribed.
What is far more likely in the future are alternative forms of energy which to date have been little explored or developed. In relation to the huge amount of interest, implementation and money spent on traditional forms such as oil, they have been largely ignored. But there is a large potential there, even if to date little realized and able at the moment to provide but a small fraction of our energy needs.
Three of the more promising could be wind, solar, and tidal. As mentioned, Denmark demonstrates what might be done with wind if determined. Its implementation is also increasing in the US and globally. If every source of energy requires certain resources and is not entirely clean, wind is otherwise one of the cleanest. As with any of these alternative forms its most pressing deficit at the moment is the lack of a truly good battery for storage. If such development not impossible, all the more as so little thought and money put seriously into its creation thus far. Some of the downsides to wind are that not every location suitable, all the more as few will welcome large wind farms in their backyard. Also in the need for greater capacity in electricity transmission lines, although this true for any form of electricity generation. With wind also being able to scale far smaller to that of small blades on an individual residence, then possibly with no need of transmission lines at all.
There is a vast amount of energy in the ocean's currents and tidal movements. Thus far we have only begun to tap into this, with some early experiments rudely washed away or grounded as badly as a ship sunk on unyielding rock. But examples exist today, primarily in Europe, of working prototypes, reliably producing electricity. They take different forms, some long like jointed worms drifting in the ocean, others as buoys bobbing up and down, producing a bit of electricity with every up and down surge of a wave.
Of these three solar may hold the widest promise. It bears repeating that enough solar energy falls upon this planet in one hour to provide our annual global electricity use. Only our current technology in solar cells, if rapidly improving, can still capture but a fraction of the energy falling upon them. Then crippled of course with the lack of a proper battery which would reliably provide this energy 24/7. But battery technology is improving, all the more as people become more serious. Aside from the types presently in use, those more experimental, such as liquid sodium, hold the promise of being able to reliably hold vast amounts of energy. Contrary to popular wisdom, solar collection can and does work well even in often cloudy environments, only best with full sun. Moreover this is a technology which can be, and is, implemented on the scale of a single residence.
One fine example of this in and about Taos, NM. Many specifically designed 'Earthship' homes there are entirely energy self-sufficient, at least insofar as the heat, lighting and appliances are concerned. This is basically achieved through careful design of the structure to minimize heat loss and maximize energy efficiency. Electricity is usually derived solely from solar and, even if this still tends to be an expensive technology, one of these residences can still be built or purchased at roughly the same cost as a traditional dwelling.
Thus it is not so much a question of what might be done, as what will, and when. The conundrum is that mankind has flourished with the advent of modern technologies, but in this skill having outpaced our wisdom they may prove our downfall as well. There is yet the widespread understanding and acceptance that all within nature exists within a certain balance, we as well, no matter how advanced. Indeed, perhaps all the more. The transition back whence we came will prove near disaster unless we allow for a smooth transition to new ways of being, in fact advancement to a higher state. Either that or we will cling to the past too long.
^ as usual long but imformative posts. I know a lot of times you and I can disagree but on this topic we agree mainly because I see how it can help Pueblo and rural Colorado.
You said the top 3 are solar, wind and tidal. Obviously there are no tides in Colorado so that leaves solar and wind. Pueblo already has a major tower plant for wind turbines where they will make towers for America not just Colorado. Now they are most likely going to build a solar plant here that will build solar cells for America. Then if we get the proposed solar plants and Colorado Energy Park near fowler that will have multiple energy sources including nuclear will help the economy of southern Colroado.
This is a fun time to be alive to see the change from oil based energy sources and the next 10 to 20 years should be fun to watch.
Coal is one such option, if with some serious downsides. Despite marketing hype, there is nothing 'clean' about it, and it shouldn't take the sight of entire mountains being razed in West Virginia to convince one of that. Like oil, use of this fossil fuel is causing our planet to warm.
Sorry, but no matter how many times you people say that we are causing warming through coal burning, there is no conclusive evidence of that cause and effect. You say it like it is fact, but it is NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Septic
This is a fun time to be alive to see the change from oil based energy sources and the next 10 to 20 years should be fun to watch.
Yeah, I'm bettin' the next 10-20 years are gonna be a real hoot. I know the engineer in me gets in the way, but little details like dismal EROEI ratios, the realities of solar power density and transmission loss, and nagging questions about the still uncontemplated second and third-order effects of large solar and wind fields make me less than ecstatic. Add to that the looming economic problems we face, and it's hard to see how we will be able to keep pouring money we don't have into projects that don't stand to produce much more than the empty headlines you like to keep cheerleading about.
^ That's funny because I have talked to people in the industry who say the exact opposite. So like you said we can't predict the future but odds are alternative energy will be apart of it and I am glad Colorado and Pueblo is leading the way. Infact look at this from today's Pueblo Chieftain:
DENVER — A bill promoting renewable energy generated close to home will be heard by a state Senate committee today, and its supporters say it will bring jobs and lower energy bills to Colorado residents.
. One of the principal reasons why is because globally we have used about half of all oil within planet Earth, or in any event that ever likely to be recovered.
We have? Last figures I saw estimated we have only used about 1/20 of known recoverable reserves.
And keep in mind most of the earths surface has never even been surveyed.
Last I checked as well Colorado has plenty of underground economic wealth to last for eternity.
Sorry, but no matter how many times you people say that we are causing warming through coal burning, there is no conclusive evidence of that cause and effect. You say it like it is fact, but it is NOT.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, total output of CO2 from coal emissions as of 2008 amount to about 13 billion metric tons.
Man made CO2 emissions, though relatively small by global standards, occur in excess of the ability of natural systems to absorb those emissions.
This paper (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf - broken link) provides excellent experimental data correlating the effect of increased CO2 with an increase in longwave downward radiation.
Numerous, highly prominent scientific organizations endorse a consensus position that much of the global warming trend in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. Organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, British Antarctic Survey, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Environmental Protection Agency, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, European Physical Society, Federation of American Scientists, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA), International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal Meteorological Society among many others.
This post is not meant as a comprehensive refutation of those skeptics who disagree with the wealth of data out there indicating human influence on our atmosphere. There is so much data, in fact, that it's not very hard to find. I welcome those interested to take a look.
Quote:
Waneroo said - Last I checked as well Colorado has plenty of underground economic wealth to last for eternity.
Eternity? Or just as long as we as a species are still on the planet? And when we turn over that ground to access those resources, is Colorado still going to be a place we'll all want to live in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Energy
