Hard numbers on sustainable energy

[jonesy]

... the promotors of nuclear power always gloss over the waste issue claiming some future technology will sort it out one day (hopefully).
...

No they don't. The waste disposal problem is political, not technological.

 

[LLB]

As an alternative, why not focus more effort on waste dump energy extraction ?
It is something we cannot get away from. They generate heat and methane which could both be tapped for heating (obviously) and power generation. We as a race are going to carry on producing it, and it is always going to be a problem to resolve.

Perhaps User482 or other kings of the pile can shed some light on this avenue

 

[jonesy]

As an alternative, why not focus more effort on waste dump energy extraction ?
It is something we cannot get away from. They generate heat and methane which could both be tapped for heating (obviously) and power generation. We as a race are going to carry on producing it, and it is always going to be a problem to resolve.

Perhaps User482 or other kings of the pile can shed some light on this avenue

Well for starters we need to move away from landfill for waste disposal. There should be scope to produce some methane from anaerobic digestion of sewage and food waste, but it is never going to be more than a tiny fraction of our energy needs.

Let's move away from the idea that there is a single 'alternative' source of energy that can solve all our problems; there isn't one. We'll need lots of different sources, some new, some existing, in combination with greatly improved energy efficiency. Some advocate a reduced standard of living as well, but there are no votes in that, so let's forget it as a practical option.

 

[domtyler]

As an alternative, why not focus more effort on waste dump energy extraction ?
It is something we cannot get away from. They generate heat and methane which could both be tapped for heating (obviously) and power generation. We as a race are going to carry on producing it, and it is always going to be a problem to resolve.

Perhaps User482 or other kings of the pile can shed some light on this avenue

Not a bad idea there Linf!

On a similar note, I am currently watching Murray - Santoro and as I am watching in HD it is easy to see that they are both perspiring heavily. Naturally I have begun to wonder if there is any mileage in tapping this rich energy source? We could just link anyone engaging in physical exercise into some kind of steam generation plant and feed the resulting power back into the grid. Why anyone has not thought of this before is beyond me? I reckon it would be much cheaper than nuclear too.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Not a bad idea there Linf!

On a similar note, I am currently watching Murray - Santoro and as I am watching in HD it is easy to see that they are both perspiring heavily. Naturally I have begun to wonder if there is any mileage in tapping this rich energy source? We could just link anyone engaging in physical exercise into some kind of steam generation plant and feed the resulting power back into the grid. Why anyone has not thought of this before is beyond me? I reckon it would be much cheaper than nuclear too.

In jest, you aren't too far away from some things that are being trialled. There's a system they were trying out in Shinjuku Station in Tokyo that powers the ticket gates via tapping the energy of the footfall of the passengers passing through. I recently saw a similar system being proposed by a British inventor but with motorway on and off ramps.

 

[CopperBrompton]

There's also an 'eco disco' near Kings Cross where the sound system is powered by the dancers via an under-floor compression system of some kind.

Ben

 

[LLB]

There's also an 'eco disco' near Kings Cross where the sound system is powered by the dancers via an under-floor compression system of some kind.

Ben

and the added advantage of this is that when they put a load of shyte on and the dancers peg it off the dance floor, the music dies with it

 

[domtyler]

In jest, you aren't too far away from some things that are being trialled. There's a system they were trying out in Shinjuku Station in Tokyo that powers the ticket gates via tapping the energy of the footfall of the passengers passing through. I recently saw a similar system being proposed by a British inventor but with motorway on and off ramps.

Okay, getting back to all seriousness, clever and efficient small scale systems like this definitely have a part to play in the future and I love to hear about them. Whether or not they will ever play an important enough role to have any effect on global climate or save the human race from extinction through our own profligacy though is another matter entirely.

 

[simon l& and a half]

his unwillingness to get to grips with savings on consumption is a bit odd. If you bought a flat that I (or any number of others) designed recently your heating costs would be about £50 a year. Retro-fitting insulation and decent (cheap) extract units to existing housing wouldn't bring bills down that far, but it might halve them.

My view on renewables is based simply on the German precedent. If they can do it without turning the country into a giant windmill, why can't we? ...........And the answer to that question is pretty simple - the wretched business of the Lewis wind farm that isn't just shows that you can burn the atmosphere to a crisp in this country but you can't hurt a sparrow.

 

[LLB]

My gut feeling on this is that Nuclear will be our downfall, not our saving grace. To encourage every country in the world to go nuclear to save the planet will mean equipping them with the means to build a nuclear arsenal.

Any other way apart has to be looked at instead of nuclear - the technology is just open to abuse by the military/political movement in any given tin pot dictatorship - not forgetting the full lifecycle costs to consider.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Okay, getting back to all seriousness, clever and efficient small scale systems like this definitely have a part to play in the future and I love to hear about them. Whether or not they will ever play an important enough role to have any effect on global climate or save the human race from extinction through our own profligacy though is another matter entirely.

The thing is that if these efficient small-scale systems were normal - i.e.: routinely built in to entrances, exits, roads and pavements used by large numbers of people - it would a massive difference. With advances in LED lighting, in cities you could effectively have largely self-powered street lighting, for example... I really do not understand the lethargy amongst goverments when it comes to funding essential R&D. I think unfortunately, it is once again the decline of the idea that the state can do things for the public good in the vain hope that the market will do so. It quite clearly doesn't, or at least if it does, it is too slow to respond.

 

[GaryA]

Ah ha- just discovered this thread....surprisingly civil compared to ding-dong bouts in politics...even dom seems almost sensible...i said almost

Whilst agreeing with a lot of the diagnosis of the problems and the theoretical solutions i have to confess (as ever*) a high degree of scepticism over the whole idea of civilisation being saved by a combination of 'third way' technological innovation and public-political consciouness raising.... solutions always create new problems which take decades to resolve
Jared Diamond sums it up better than i could in his book 'Collapse':


But actual experience is the opposite of this assumed track record. Some dreamed-of new technologies succeed, while others don’t. Those that do succeed typically take a few decades to develop and phase in widely: think of gas heating, electric lighting, cars and airplanes, television, computers, and so on. New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problem that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems. Technological solutions to environmental problems are routinely far more expensive than preventive measures to avoid creating the problem in the first place: for example, the billions of dollars of damages and clean-up costs associated with major oil spills, compared to the modest cost of safety measures effective at minimizing the risks of a major oil spill.

Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things, which may be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current problems are unintended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid advances in technology during the twentieth century have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that’s why we’re in the situation in which we now find ourselves. What makes you think that, as of January 1, 2006, for the first time in human history, technology will miraculously stop causing new unanticipated problems while it solves just the problems that it previously produced?


* never let wishful thinking get in the way of telling the truth

 

[CopperBrompton]

German precedent. If they can do it without turning the country into a giant windmill, why can't we?

Germany is very different to the UK. First, the population density is massively lower, so it is easy to build large numbers of windfarms that are far from the nearest people. Second, the landscape is very different. There are plenty of areas where the addition of windfarms doesn't have too great a visual impact. This is totally different to the UK, where the appearance of the landscape would be ruined.

But even in Germany (where I've spent a lot of time), these things are still a blight on the landscape.

Ben

 

[Crackle]

Germany is very different to the UK. First, the population density is massively lower, so it is easy to build large numbers of windfarms that are far from the nearest people. Second, the landscape is very different. There are plenty of areas where the addition of windfarms doesn't have too great a visual impact. This is totally different to the UK, where the appearance of the landscape would be ruined.

But even in Germany (where I've spent a lot of time), these things are still a blight on the landscape.

Ben

That doesn't ring true. Population density in the West and North is not low, perhaps in the East where I've not spent much time.

Besides which it's a red herring. The whole mentality towards green issues, quality, planning, long termism (is that a word?) is different, always has been. 30 years ago Germans were recycling, they're 20 years ahead of the UK in that respect and the green movement in Germany is far more politically advanced than the UK.

 

[CopperBrompton]

That doesn't ring true. Population density in the West and North is not low, perhaps in the East where I've not spent much time.

When you include the East (where the cities are much denser) the difference isn't as great (231 vs 246), but the West has much larger swathes of semi-populated land, and that's where you find the windfarms.

The whole mentality towards green issues, quality, planning, long termism (is that a word?) is different, always has been.

It is certainly different; whether or not it is better is a different question. It's a much more restrictive society, and a lot of the legislation in Germany wouldn't sit well in the UK (for example, being banned from washing your car in the street).

Ben