Another use for geothermal. Nuclear should be in the mix as well.
Do you have an efficiency factor in mind?
Thermodynamics will limit the efficient conversion of all energy sources. What is the factor that moves a source from feasible to impossible?
Good lord are you seriously going to make that argument?
Fossil fuels were created millions of years ago, we’re just tapping them as we need them.
Solar power relies on a constant supply of sunlight which isn’t possible for generating power reliably.
Wind depends on wind blowing at a constant minimum level and that doesn’t happen either.
You have to find a way therefore to move the power generated from them where the sun is shining and wind is blowing to where it isn’t.
Since one entire side of the planet is dark at any given time and solar efficiency wanes as soon as the sun get’s below the 45 degree plane in the evening and doesn’t increase again until that plane is broken in the morning you’re down to less than 8 hours of reliable power from solar in any 24hr period on any spot on the planet even along the equator.
The further you move away from the equator the less peak generating time is available.
Add losses from smoke, smog, fog, and clouds and it becomes even less reliable.
Wind turbines are incredibly unreliable as well and totally dependent on minimal winds. At any given time 10-30% of the turbines at any given wind farm will be down for maintenance and repair as well.
Neither can be relied upon for a constant supply of power.
geothermal as a storage medium? How do you transport it?
Geothermal is fine in areas where it’s feasible. No issue. Even provides pretty stable rate of output. But it’s not viable everywhere.
Nuclear is it’s own can of worms. Fukushima and Chernobyl are major stumbling blocks and lead to “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard). If you mean fusion instead of fission, then that isn’t available yet and might be an alternative if we ever get the process to work on an economic scale.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
But if we can harness tidal flows…storage will be lot less of a problem. Depending on where those generators are locate at.
I am talking about geothermal energy plants. I think we are getting pretty close.
The oil and gas industry is conservative. To begin to develop geothermal energy from ten to twelve thousand metres deep will be expensive. But the benefits will also be enormous. That is why the industry will eventually begin to invest. In the 1960s, we were beginners when it came to pumping oil from the North Sea. Tackling that challenge was a huge boost in many ways. As a nation, we bet and we won,” says Lademo.
“I believe we can develop the knowledge we need about materials to get down to 300°C in ten years time. It might take 25 years or more of research and development to get down to 500°C,” Lund said, with agreement from Lademo.
“We are convinced that this is possible. But it requires us to further develop existing technology. To do that requires money, a lot of money. Public funding is the key that’s needed to get the industry overall to invest. Geothermal energy is a unique opportunity for the oil industry to develop in a new way. They will come to realize this, it’s just a matter of time.”
Distance, resistance, and heat.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/
Seriously Finch this is HS physics stuff.
Geothermal as an always on power for when the other sources aren’t generating. As for nuclear, that’s old tech, new designs are safe.
I’m originally from upstate New York, not much of tidal flows around my old neck of the woods.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Oh, I get that.
Just saying it’s not widely feasible. Where it is…
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
Geothermal is promising for home heating in regions where that is needed. I’ve seen some innovation in verticals drilling rigs that’s makes it available even to retrofits as opposed to a looped field that requires excavation.
This is an area the I see innovation and economies of scale can change the viability. If I could get a vertical geothermal shaft installed on scale with the cost of a new furnace (say a x2 - x4 price increase) I would consider it given my seasonal heating costs.
Both damn coasts are energy producing generators.
There’s few facts and a whole lot of belief in that article.
I believe it’s possible too eventually but the challenges are enormous and you still can’t get around the seismology.
One shift and you lose your power.
Those are fools to be blunt.
1 Like
Comparing modern tech to fifty plus year old reactor designs really stretches the bounds of credulity, unfortunately people would rather be scared than educated.
And so-called moderate libs are afraid to push back radicals on their side.
Seriously your link does not explain your position. It just quantifies transmission losses.
There is not debate that transmission carries loss. Or that deriving work from energy has limited efficiencies.
It does not back your claim that under thermodynamics it is impossible to derive useful work from solar energy in an economically viable way.
No need to get offensive.
“Green Energy” production is going to vary depending on geography and climate. In some areas tidal will be a viable option, as long as you can keep the NIMBY’s at bay. In other areas geothermal will be viable. In others solar can be a good option.
Generating energy on the cost of Virginia isn’t going to help Oklahoma.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
That type of geothermal requires a whole lot of square footage and is very expensive.
We’re talking about generating power from geothermal sources, something completely different.
Is it fair to extrapolate today’s solar tech to tech 50 years forward?
