What fuel source(s) will solve the energy crisis? We are running out of oil, coal does too much damage to the environment, solar and other renewables are still too inefficient, and we just don't have the technology for fusion reactors. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts /mlpol/.
100 replies and 11 files omitted.
>>393644>Green-party type "environmentalists" are so glow-op'd that they refuse to touch nuclear power I see this sort of behaviour a lot, especially online. The arguments are all the same
>it's dangerous!<As is anything if you aren't careful.>chernobyl!<Two slavs having a dick measuring contest.>fukushima!<An unfortunate act of God.>environmental impact!<Significantly less damaging than fossil fuels.It's all rather quite silly. Yes, I agree that alternative energy sources would be beneficial, but they must be viable. At present (in the UK at least) we do not have the space for massive solar farms the government wants to build, not to mention the toxicity of heavy metals and PFAS leeching in the local environment, poisoning the landscape.
Wind turbines are a possibility, but not as a primary source. Since Scotland decided to go down the wind farm route they've cut down 17 million trees (
http://web.archive.org/web/20250312024942/https://www.gov.scot/publications/eir-202400407867/). Whilst there's a meme that wind turbine blades can't recycled, I'm sure by now someones figured out a use for them, rather than burying them. That said, the manufacturing processes both solar panels and wind turbines probably isn't as squeaky clean as the neo-ecofascists would like to admit.
Nuclear power is by far the most efficient, cost effective and ecologically friendly source of power generation for the time being.
>>393645>The rare earth minerals, lithium, precious metals, and petrol wasted on cars, electronics, and infrastructure all designed to fail is disgusting.This pisses me off to no end. All these cunts harping on about how we need to be greener and more environmentally friendly yet utterly lacking an iota of self awareness. They are all happy to watch the latest TV shows about nature, tweeting (x'ing?) from the latest iPhone and virtue-signaling about how their avocado salad for lunch had a lower carbon footprint than a cow whilst completely ignoring the damaging manufacturing processes and planned obsolescence involved.
[Read more] >>393646It really is strange how the environmental impact of planned obsolescence is almost never brought up in environmental discussions.
>>393650I mean, environmentalists do talk about overconsumption of commodity products quite a bit. Planned obsolescence is part of that.
>>393646I thought Scotland was building offshore wind turbines? As often as the seas get rough up north it seems like they'd make a decent amount of power. Generally rough sea comes with high wind.
>>393651I have never heard a serious proposal to regulate planned obsolescence or a serious push to regulate it.
>>393653There's Right To Repair: It's a growing movement, particularly in Europe.
On that note, make sure to support #StopKillingGames.
>>393650I've heard it mentioned during official talks, but never in casual conversation. People don't like to reminded that they've just entered a 4 year phone contract for the latest gadget, let alone the designed failure rate of white goods let alone lightbulbs.
>>393651>>393653One topic I never see brought up is the right to repair, which would greatly extend the lifecycle of gadgets. Louis Rossmann is making leaps and bounds with this, but most people are either not aware or just don't care.
If anyone's interested, Rossmanns just had a chat with the leader of StopKillingGames>>393652Still needs investment however (
http://web.archive.org/web/20250215233458/https://www.crownestatescotland.com/scotlands-property/offshore-wind/scotwind-leasing-round) >>393655>I've heard it mentioned during official talks, but never in casual conversation. People don't like to reminded that they've just entered a 4 year phone contract for the latest gadget, let alone the designed failure rate of white goods let alone lightbulbs.That's because a lot of planned obsolescence is in part fueled by American consoomer culture that demands that people put themselves in debt to have the latest shiny phone, and the public is largely complicit in screwing themselves. Marketing is one hell of a drug.
>Still needs investment howeverAll infrastructure needs investment, especially infrastructure built to last.
>>393654Fair. An other partial solution to the energy crisis is to simply used alternatives to petrol products like Siberian Dandelion or Guayule for latex and mycomaterials when possible.
>>392472>>392506We finished forecast for fossil fuel reserves with EROI>10 and 2020s mining technologies:
https://paste.debian.net/plain/1386562Last 150 years humanity has pattern of ×2 energy consumption growth each 30 years. This factor equal to 2.4% yearly economic growth. With this rate of energy consumption fossil fuel era will be finished in 2060s. A lot of coal, oil and gas resources will remain, but they are useless with EROI<10, only this rate of energy investment can support modern world.
>>392473Thorium reactors looks like the only solution for late XXI century.
Russian breeder reactors for Uranium-238 have two major disadvantages. For 1 GW electric output they need 20 tons Plutonium-239, but USSR generated only 155 tons P-239 and USA 100 tons, this means only 13 GW initially and 26 GW after 30-60 year-long breeding process. Less than 0.5% of world electricity requirement. Also 20 tons P-239 = 2200 nuclear warheads with simplest implosion design.
I found russian article about compact 20-GeV proton accelerator to shatter Uranium-238 with ×200 energy output and full uranium desintegration, but test accelerator generated only 10^9 protons per second, which means only 0.54 kW power output. After first tests in early 2000s this experiments seems to be classified. Also, few months ago I heard about new neutron initiators, which makes 0.2kt plutonium mininukes possible. This can be achieved only with explosion design pulse accelerator.
So, there is still some hope.
[Read more] >>394397>Last 150 years humanity has pattern of ×2 energy consumption growth each 30 years. This factor equal to 2.4% yearly economic growth. With this rate of energy consumption fossil fuel era will be finished in 2060s. A lot of coal, oil and gas resources will remain, but they are useless with EROI<10, only this rate of energy investment can support modern world.This is what we call a Malthusian Catastrophe.
>So, there is still some hope.Yeah, nuclear energy is the way.
>>394397I think a lot of those unreachable coal deposits or depleted mines could be made useful using biogassification.
https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/biological-coal-gasification >>394399On its own that probably won't solve the energy crisis, but it could buy time.