Energy of the future.

[Anonymous No.5170767]

What energy source do you feel is most viable, in general, for the future? Think 15 years+

I personally feel that nuclear fission, and eventually nuclear fusion, are the most reliable. It provides a a fairly stable source of fuel, fuel rods last for incredible amounts of time, and is much more safer than current methods. Many critics will say "LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AT CHERNOBYL/THREE MILE ISLAND". merely put, accidents will happen. However, technology today is much more safer than it was then, and causes much less relative casualties, even compared to coal. (see picture)

Also, ideas on improving current/speculated methods.

[Anonymous No.5170791]

>>5170767
The reason nuclear has fewer deaths is because we're way more paranoid about it. Its not really a fair way to compare the arbitrary "dangerousness" of the energy source itself.

[Anonymous No.5170795]

Can you compare another energy incident with what happened in Chernobyl/Three Mile Island/Fukushima?
Counting death is pretty dubious, especially since you have no way of counting the number of cancers caused by them.

[Anonymous No.5170796]

any source for your numbers? Something I could cite in a discussion, so that I don't have to mention 4chan as a source?

[Anonymous No.5170804]

>>5170767
Where are all these hydro deaths coming from?

[Anonymous No.5170806]

>>5170791

This. Nuclear is regulated to hell and back, and the potential to produce nuclear weapons means any sane country will not deregulate the industry just to achieve cost savings. France's nuclear is the most pervasive, least expensive out of the developed nations, but it is completely nationalized.

For coal, the numbers of deaths would be much higher if you also calculated the numbers of people who are killed by lung diseases, mercury poisoning, etc.

Hydro's figures are the largest due to mega-projects in the developing world where worker's rights and safety protocols are nonexistent.

[Anonymous No.5170891]

>>5170804
>>5170806
I'm thinking the hydro deaths are due to flash floods from collapsing or overflowing dams.

[chemfag !Hzum9Tvcag No.5170893]

>>5170767
Why isn't solar on here?

[Anonymous No.5170895]

>>5170893
Solar components may cause poisoning, right? I guess it's rather indirect. Putting it there would also add the poisoning for coal and maybe even the radiation poisoning for nuclear.

[Anonymous No.5171026]

/sci/, I love you guys so much more than /pol/

Energy of the future OP?

>1,000 years from now
>personal computer type devices alone use excess of 20,000w of power for things like lazer cutters and holographic projectors
>hydrogen is the only element in the universe abundant enough to keep our graphene batteries charged

In the near future, Im hoping 1st world countries will gravitate towards solar/wind. Hydro is good too, except it can really fuck up the environment if you damn the wrong river at the wrong place. The rest of the world will do the same, but with a lot of coal and oil mixed in until it runs out. Breeder and fusion reactors are a toss up at this point

[Anonymous No.5171049]

>>5170806
actually hydros number brought turned completely to shit by a single incident in china which killed 171,000 people

I'm not sure how good it would fair if that event was ruled out or we only looked at first world countries.

[Anonymous No.5171069]

We should just use the ocean for energy. It's not like the energy we receive from the moon and sun are going to run out before we have the means to move on to other planets.

[Anonymous No.5171070]

Why is hydro so dangerous?

Constructing the dams?

[Anonymous No.5171700]

>>5171026
>Wind power
Are you retarded? I'm betting you're not living a country where wind power has been implemented

[Anonymous No.5171723]

How did I manage to be inb4 LFTRs?

[Anonymous No.5171774]

I think there's going to be a trend toward systems that are unobtrusive, do at least one other useful thing besides producing energy, and can just work forever without consuming anything.

That means geothermal and solar roads and roofing materials.

Deep geothermal power sources can be implemented as parts of projects which also stop earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Shallow geothermal systems can be used for heating and cooling, and incorporated into foundations, sewer systems, buried data and power lines, subways, buried package delivery tubes, etc.

Solar power generation capabilities can be incorporated into the surfaces of roads and buildings. Batteries and hydrogen tanks can be kept in basements or buried.

All of this stuff can be set up to be maintained by a self-maintaining robotic system and total recycling, so once the system is built, it just works.

[chemfag !Hzum9Tvcag No.5171793]

>>5170895

Solar does involve toxic chemicals in the production of some panels with current technology, however there is lots of resesrch being done to find new ones that are more benign. It has the capacity to far exceed our energy needs if we can kove past some of the economic issues (like China 'cheating' at production and causing U.S. companies to go bankrupt.).

[Anonymous No.5171876]

Personally I think it's going to have to be nuclear in some form or another. Renewables just don't provide the energy we need currently, especially with the rate at which developing countries are expanding.

[Anonymous No.5171897]

I think nuclear will really take off once somebody invents a recipe for the average person to build an atomic bomb in his garage.

[Anonymous No.5171928]

>What energy source do you feel is most viable, in general, for the future? Think 15 years+

Coal.

[Anonymous No.5171935]

jew bodies. definitely.

[Anonymous No.5171936]

>>5171928

100 years from now?

Solar.

[Anonymous No.5171947]

>>5171936
200 years from now?

Firewood. Because of the thing with the robots.

[Anonymous No.5171948]

Solar. There can be no doubt at all.

http://alwayson.goingon.com/AOStory/Solar-Power-Case-Study-Exponential-Growth

[Ruby !!iPJbBu5S79g No.5171975]

I suppose this might be a good thread to ask this in without creating a new one...

What is /sci/'s opinion on thorium power, and is there any objective data out there confirming or denying its "safe" reputation that it has garnered lately?

[Anonymous No.5172907]

To everyone in this thread saying "solar", go learn a thing or two and shut up in the meantime.

[Anonymous No.5172934]

Fusion technology will always be 50 years away.
Truth is, you can't raise the temperature high enough to have a sustainable fusion reaction.

[Anonymous No.5172954]

>>5171975

You shouldn't even mention Thorium power on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5172988]

>>5172934
Actually, you can, it's mostly a matter of scale, but sustained reactions are the least interesting.

Inertial confinement fusion is the more reasonable approach. Consider: we've had energy-positive fusion devices since the 50s.

[Anonymous No.5173015]

>>5170767
Sources?

I'm sure that all of these figures are poorly formed.

I doubt the coal mining doesn't include the deaths due to contaminated water down stream of mines (Even extreme cases such as Baia Mare cynaide spill).
Same goes for the nuclear where 'Natural deaths' where caused by small exposure for long periods.

All of them don't shown effects on the environment near mines or power plants

In the future we need to decrease the amount of energy we use and then using local properties to provide energy for that area.
Ie. Hydro power in Northern Canada and other lower population areas
Wind and wave generators in open areas with low environmental impact
Solar power would be useful if used by families separately to decrease their reliance on the power grid, or for areas such as sub-sahara regions.
Nuclear power for high populations without much extra area

Just my thoughts

[Anonymous No.5173381]

>>5172988
>Inertial confinement fusion is the more reasonable approach. Consider: we've had energy-positive fusion devices since the 50s.
Uhhh, gonna need some citations or clarifications. Why aren't we using them now?

[Anonymous No.5173398]

In 15 years very little will change.

Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind will still be around in 50 years.

The growth of wind power will probably cease as soon as subsidies stop coming.

The future of solar depends on technological breakthroughs in this field. Optimistically it can be a good supplementary source of energy, it will never be a base load source.

Coal won't see much growth, probably a modest decline in the developed world as old power plants are phased out. Nobody wants to breathe that shit.

Gas has a bright future in places where it will be extracted (USA, China, Russia maybe Poland etc).

Nuclear will probably really take off when simpler gen IV or gen V reactors arrive (~20 years).

Hydro - not much to do here. Most of the potential is already being used. Could be very good in the developing world though.

Geo. tidal, algae etc... no.

Fusion - probably never. Even if ITER works the capital costs are astronomical. You'd need not build hundreds of these to make a difference.

[Anonymous No.5173401]

>>5172988
No, actually inertial confinement is turning out to be a dead end. Haven't you been reading news on the NIF lately?

Personally I think ITER is going to work somehow (as a science experiment) but fusion will never be commercialized because of the astronomical capital costs and engineering hurdles especially problems with confinement and neutron activation.

[Anonymous No.5173404]

>>5171975
I don't know what is "safe". Is it safe to leave the house? It certainly isn't. Is it safe to run a nuclear power plant? It certainly isn't.

[Anonymous No.5173409]

>>5171876
Renewables (namely solar) were never meant to be a base load source of energy. The prople who try to sell them to the public as a replacement to traditional sources are either crooks or deluded.

The future renewables is solar but it's always going to be a complementary source in the developed world.

You can't run a steel foundry on solar panels.

[Anonymous No.5173418]

>>5173398
Have to disagree, 2020 there will be no more nuclear fission in germany. Sadly, our government freaked out after the tsunami in japan last year and wants to switch to "green energy"

[Heath !E1kzGzIKV6 No.5173461]

Nuclear fission is the best source of power, but I think solar will become more used in the future despite it's unreliability and weaknesses. Nuclear power seems to have a strong negative connotation for some reason. It's not like deaths haven't been caused through different methods of power.

[Anonymous No.5173469]

Most viable in the near future would be coal. It's cheap and abundant and easy to use.

On longer terms, and taking into account environmental damage, I would say either solar or nuclear.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.5173473]

>>5171975
oh god you have done it now

[Anonymous No.5173476]

>>5173409
>2012
>still talking about photovoltaics
get with it grandpa, CSP is the new hotness

[Anonymous No.5173486]

[THORIUM No.5173491]

THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM THORIUM

[Anonymous No.5173495]

Magnetized target fusion sounds almost too good to be true.

[serahnb No.5173526]

I say we just start building a Dyson ring now.

[Anonymous No.5173527]

Well, reading all the points given (kinda off tangent to say this), this will all depend on the world economy as a whole. Why?
1. It's a popularity contest.
2. Those in power to implement any of the systems shall be the governments acting by the will of the people (which cares jacks*&^ about these issues w/o enough economic and/or political rewards)
3. Progress in innovation will help all these system overcome their weaknesses, eventually, if enough people care (which a great majority don't)

Well, these are my two cents on the matter.

[Anonymous No.5173560]

>>5173486
So why the fuck isn't everyone using Thorium yet?

[Anonymous No.5173570]

>>5173560
Because you can't make bombs out of it.
China is on it, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.5173581]

>>5173570
>spend a shitload of uranium on reactors
>less uranium for bombs
>spend a much smaller amount of thorium
>get more energy and the unspent uranium can be used for bombs

[Anonymous No.5173823]

>>5173581
except you use enriched U-238 and plutonium in bombs, neither of which come out of the thorium fuel cycle.

[Anonymous No.5173845]

>>5173570
>>5173823
In the first place, U233 is plainly suitable for nuclear weapons, though inferior to Pu239, and has been used in at least one test. In a continuous reprocessing system, such as an LFTR, the protactinium-233 can be separated off, nearly eliminating the U232 contaminant. In any case, nuclear weapons materials are normally isotopically purified: it is a much less daunting procedure to remove a few grams of U232 from a few kilograms of U233 than to process tons of U238 out of tons of natural uranium.

In the second place, there's no difficulty using a thorium-based breeder to make plutonium. What makes thorium attractive is the number of neutrons U233 produces from fission by thermal neutrons, which is higher than plutonium. Excess U233, beyond what is needed to sustain the breeder, can easily be leveraged into a supply of Pu239 of slightly greater mass, with only slightly modified apparatus, using only a small supply of natural uranium.

[Anonymous No.5173852]

>>5173381
>>we've had energy-positive fusion devices since the 50s.
>Uhhh, gonna need some citations or clarifications. Why aren't we using them now?
We don't particularly want to blow up any cities.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5173883]

Gas in the short term, nuclear in the long term.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5173885]

>>5173486
>coolant
>self-regulating

I wasn't aware that "self-regulating" is a coolant.

[Anonymous No.5173902]

Most viable in a perfect world? Solar or nuclear.
Most viable in a profit-seeking world? Solar's doing extremely well for itself because it emphasizes less electricity, not more.

[Anonymous No.5173910]

>>5173902
>Solar's doing extremely well for itself because it emphasizes less electricity, not more.
I don't understand what you're getting at.

Anyway, the big advantage solar has over nuclear is that anyone with a little money and skill can do R&D on it, and anyone all the way down to layman consumers can put it into use.

Nuclear has to be tightly controlled, for obvious reasons. There's no way for there to really be a free market in nuclear power, so it all comes down to how smart the government is about it. And that's never good.

[Anonymous No.5173987]

>>5173910

Solar panels generate smaller amounts of electric current at any given time. This seems at first to be a weakness, but is actually a strength because if you're hooked up to the grid and a single solar panel goes offline you're not scrambling to make up a ridiculous amount of electricity, as happens when a larger power plant goes down.

Emphasizing less electricity also means the consumer is in a better position to inform the market. If he wants to run most of his appliances on his roof panels, for instance, then he will buy appliances that consume less electricity. This tells appliance-makers that efficiency is important and they will probably design their next generation of appliances to match.

To put it another way, people don't care about how much electricity they're consuming unless they can suddenly get some of that effectively for free.

[Anonymous No.5174011]

>>5170767

The correct answer is E. Solar power. It will last millions of years. It is free. It is getting easier to make and install.

[Anonymous No.5174014]

A more efficient nuclear energy plant. They only get 10%

[Nuka-Cola No.5174764]

>>5173885
dynamic stability, the fuel salt fissiles more violently the colder it is, and less the hotter it is, so it's always trying to remain in an equilibrium state and has great difficulty exceeding that specific temperature.

>>5173486
this infograph is a little hopeful. the fuel cost sounds a little low since extracting raw thorium is an involved process, and the first plants are probably going to be way bigger than just 2,000-3,000 square feet, since you need to include the online fuel reprocessing facilities.
also there'd need to be a buffer zone, but not nearly as large as a LWR. it'd be mostly for the possibility of chlorine gas leaks

>>5173495
it probably is. It sounds cool as fuck but i withhold judgement until general fusion completes their prototype next year

[Nuka-Cola No.5174766]

>>5173987
grid solar = no, PV scales up horribly
residential solar = yes, slash the crap out of your power bills during the day, especially in summer. once the cost per watt hour drops down to 50 cents per cell (it's currently 90), you'll see some serious shit