Elon Speaks to Concerns About Sustainability of EV Adoption

[Canuck]

Nope, that's not what I meant. The chosen definition of society and sweeping statements about its decline (or rise) are not the realm of science.

I agree that my definition of society being global is just that - my particular definition in relation to my comment. I also agree that my comment about the decline of our society is just my opinion and I sure hope I am proven wrong. But I certainly hope you are not saying that decline or rise of societies is not something that we should study, whether by science or other means. The Maya society collapsed and some believe that happened since by the ninth century the Maya had exhausted the environment around them to the point that it could no longer sustain a very large population. Perhaps we should learn from our species' history. One of the best ways to do so is by the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That's the very definition of science.

 

[brianman]

But I certainly hope you are not saying that decline or rise of societies is not something that we should study, whether by science or other means.

Agree. With this and some of the other stuff you've said above (I didn't think it worth it to pull out details). I was objecting to Swedish's terminology and/or phrasing; also, he was answering on your behalf which was weird.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

And as I understand it, words and their meaning are important to you, so I’m sure you meant to write:

I had good guess as to your view of the science already. /…

Nope, that's not what I meant. The chosen definition of society and sweeping statements about its decline (or rise) are not the realm of science.

[...]

International Impacts

Internationally, the effects of climate change on agriculture and food supply are likely to be similar to those seen in the United States. However, other stressors such as population growth may magnify their effects. For example, in developing countries, adaptation options like changes in crop-management or ranching practices or improvements to irrigation are more limited than in the United States and other industrialized nations.

To learn more about adaptation options, visit the Agricultural and Food Supply Adaptation section.

Impacts to the global food supply concern the United States because they can affect food prices here at home. In addition, food shortages abroad can pose humanitarian crises and national security concerns. [My underline.] [...

Source: Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA

…/ also, he was answering on your behalf which [I thought (My edit.)] was weird.

Why would I be answering on Canuck’s behalf?

I was merely posting in this thread.

 

[chickensevil]

Can someone please tell me why Nuclear is not "sustainable". You all do realize that your precious "sustainable" solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy is derived from giant naturally occurring nuclear reactions (namely the core of the earth and the sun). While I will give you we are being very wasteful with nuclear technology right now (using about .5% of the energy and "throwing the rest away") if people would stop trying to build bombs and actually shift the science to power generation there are a bunch of candidates out there that can use 99% of the fuel in the energy generation process.

 

[SteveG3]

chicken, fwiw, I've wondered about nuclear's place in all this too. I suspect it is simply the obvious. Our collective experience of events like Fukishima.

Frankly, I'm not sure how capable we are yet as a global community to sort out what risks/dangers are acceptable in a respectful way. I hope we'll get there.

Hard to imagine there wouldn't be continual technological improvements to the safety risk. fwiw, Elon's comment about 100X100 miles of a corner of Arizona producing enough solar energy for all U.S. electricity reminded me of a pet idea of mine... smaller nuclear plants with each reactor miles apart in VERY remote areas... i.e., I look at a place like Australia... such a tiny percentage of the land mass inhabited, you could have plants with no residential areas within hundreds of miles (same probably goes for large areas of Canada). Well, just wanted to put the idea out there for fun. I know my knowledge here is limited enough that the idea may simply be goofy. More goofy? robot workers as first line of defense against a dangerous event.

I just don't know that where we are with solar can produce enough energy to heat our homes and offices any time soon.

 

[neroden]

The math to do is:
- how much oil-based fuel is burned per day in terms of BTUs
- how much electricity generation is done today burning NG, Nuclear, Oil, coal
add all that up.

Then add up the renewables generation. And then compare.

This actually underestimates the potential of renewables. You need to put in some efficiency numbers for the direct fuel-burning. Fuel-burning for anything but heating horribly inefficient, and as a result you can swap out the BTUs for solar kWh representing less energy generation.

- - - Updated - - -

True. There's no cure for dumb.

There may be prevention for dumb, though. I don't know if we can make the change fast enough.

Americas Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

 

[jerry33]

chicken, fwiw, I've wondered about nuclear's place in all this too. I suspect it is simply the obvious. Our collective experience of events like Fukishima.

Fukishima has a lot in common with Tesla fires--media over-hype egged on by haters. Compared to the number of unnecessary deaths caused by coal and wood heating, it makes all the nuclear accidents look like small potatoes. The main problem at Fukushima was that it was allowed to run past it's end-of-life. This happened mostly because the anti-nuclear crowd stopped new more modern plants but that same crowd didn't want to go without electricity either.

You might want to take a read here:

Part I and Part II of this series showed that radiation, whether from reactor accidents or even nuclear war, pose no long term global risks for the biosphere.

Wood fires are deadly. Cooking fires, mainly wood but also cattle dung, kill half a million children annually and another 3,000,000 adults. Woodsmoke is certainly natural. A naturally toxic soup of nasty natural chemicals.

 

[Doug_G]

Fukishima has a lot in common with Tesla fires--media over-hype egged on by haters.

That's true; however, TEPCO also tried to tell everyone that they had no meltdown when they had three, denied leaking radioactive water, and basically did everything they could to undermine everyone's confidence in them. The cleanup will be ludicrously expensive.

That's not to say that it's impossible to do nuclear energy safely. But as you say, politics are getting in the way of building a new generation of safer and more efficient reactors.

 

[brianman]

Why would I be answering on Canuck’s behalf?

I dunno. I asked him a question (quoting him) and you replied. I still find it weird. I guess you do too.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I dunno. I asked him a question (quoting him) and you replied. /…

I did not ”reply”.

I posted in a thread (!)

…/ I guess you do too.

No.

Why would I?

…/ I still find it weird. /…

Ya don’t say (!)

I mean, why argue on the merits, when instead one can try and make it to be about semantics and formalities?

Right?

 

[brianman]

Sigh.

 

[jerry33]

That's true; however, TEPCO also tried to tell everyone that they had no meltdown when they had three, denied leaking radioactive water, and basically did everything they could to undermine everyone's confidence in them. The cleanup will be ludicrously expensive.

That's not to say that it's impossible to do nuclear energy safely. But as you say, politics are getting in the way of building a new generation of safer and more efficient reactors.

Yes, TEPCO and the Japanese government fumbled pretty badly--and I suspect it was out of ignorance and lack of planning.

 

[JRP3]

Can someone please tell me why Nuclear is not "sustainable".

I think LFTR's, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, could be, and they aren't very useful in making bombs as I understand it. We really should be building another prototype reactor now.

 

[chickensevil]

I think LFTR's, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, could be, and they aren't very useful in making bombs as I understand it. We really should be building another prototype reactor now.

This was actually my turn around toward nuclear, hearing about LFTR. If anyone wants to hear about this youtube: "Thorium Redux" there is a 5 minute version and then you can continue the video for another hour or whatever it is for the longer version. It "can" be made into bombs... but it would be seriously more trouble than it's worth... and someone would notice you shutting down the reactor for long periods in order to extract the necessary chemicals to get a bomb. And if I understand correctly China came over here to where our prototype from the 50s (60s?) is sitting and took a peak, and they are slated to have one in testing *soonish* (next couple of years)

Hard to imagine there wouldn't be continual technological improvements to the safety risk. fwiw, Elon's comment about 100X100 miles of a corner of Arizona producing enough solar energy for all U.S. electricity reminded me of a pet idea of mine... smaller nuclear plants with each reactor miles apart in VERY remote areas... i.e., I look at a place like Australia... such a tiny percentage of the land mass inhabited, you could have plants with no residential areas within hundreds of miles (same probably goes for large areas of Canada). Well, just wanted to put the idea out there for fun. I know my knowledge here is limited enough that the idea may simply be goofy. More goofy? robot workers as first line of defense against a dangerous event.

So this is the biggest issue actually with really any power, and that is loss of power in the line. The longer the distance between the plant and your house the more energy is being bled off. You can actually "hear" this bleeding on the high-power lines given by their faint "humming" sound (depending on atmospheric pressure it can be easier to hear this). The better option is actually local power. Yes you would still have everything tied into a giant grid so if needed you could get "long distance" power. But the most efficient is nearby (strictly speaking of line attenuation).

This issue is further compounded by things like solar and wind because it is very "spiky" power. The grid does not like "spikes"... that is how your electrical equipment gets shorted out. In order to balance this they usually run on a triple rudundancy. (so for the power of one solar panel, they will run 3). Then you have the power loss as they dump it into a battery... and then you have another power loss on the line as it goes into your home.

So this is why I loved the idea of LFTR. Because there is no need for a 50to1 containment field, you can make a power plant for a city able to fit into the back of a tractor trailer. One of the proposals for the military on this, is actually a "deployable" plant, where they take the reactor on the back of a truck, bury it halfway in a hole, drop your second "emergency overflow/shutdown" tank in the ground and turn it on. But anyway, the idea would be not only can these reactors have the potential to produce energy at a minimum of 50% efficiency, you would have a lot less line drain since your plant would always be a couple miles away. There are some other things about how you can take that other 50% "wasted" energy and still capture it for something else like water de-salination plant... given our also very real fresh water shortage, this kinda solves at least 2 problems in 1.

 

[SteveG3]

chickensevil, thanks for posting about that LFTR youtube video. I have not watched the whole thing yet, but LFTR is now on my short list of things to learn about. as to loss of power in line, appreciate your explanation... and patience re what I now see was a quite uninformed question.


jerry33 thanks for the link, very strong clear article. I thought it would talk about significant misperceptions, did not expect to see a case for massive overestimation of radiation harm.

 

[chickensevil]

chickensevil, thanks for posting about that LFTR youtube video. I have not watched the whole thing yet, but LFTR is now on my short list of things to learn about. as to loss of power in line, appreciate your explanation... and patience re what I now see was a quite uninformed question.


jerry33 thanks for the link, very strong clear article. I thought it would talk about significant misperceptions, did not expect to see a case for massive overestimation of radiation harm.

I am glad it was helpful. I am by no means an expert in the field, just information I have picked up from doing a lot of reading up on the subject. It is my curse (blessing?) I research in really high detail different subjects when I get bored. Not all of them are useful things (I spent a good day exploring the crazy idea that the pyramids in Egypt were built for "other beings" for the purpose of being a nuclear reactor... was a fascinating concept that they actually made seem plausible to some degree. Not that I take stock in any of it, because it is a crazy theory.... I digress)

I am not at all against, solar/wind/hydro, I think I come at this from the same angle as Elon. It isn't necessarily about the environment for me, it is about sustainability. There are two branches of Nuclear research that I think if we can sort out would be an amazing breakthrough. LFTR and Fusion. LFTR has at the very least been prototyped before, and proven to work, we just need someone to be willing to foot the bill on making a new one. Fusion, I would think, would be the progression after many many years, and will likely be what we will ultimately need to power very large objects and such. Plus we would eventually run out of thorium for LFTR (although I hear the moon is like 70% thorium or something ridiculous).

For anyone interested here is the LFTR video. first 5 minutes covers a quick run through the whole concept, and then the next 2 hours-ish is about as in depth about it as you can go without going all the way into the hard core science stuff (meaning you need some knowledge about science and chemistry at like a high school level to grasp it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

 

[artsci]

Unfortunately, the train may be stoppable. As a species, we are not all nearly as bright as Elon Musk. What makes the most sense, and is in our collective best interest, rarely wins out. The greed of the very few has repeatedly shown to trump everything else. In my view, as a society, we are circling the drain. I sure hope I'm proven wrong but I won't be around to find out.

Agree. If history is any evidence faith in the human race to do the right thing is misplaced.