[extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP]

[Eugen Leitl]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:06:05AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> > However, the amount of R&D required to develop this into
> > a commercial reactor is better spent on regenerative energy sources.
> 
> What sort of regenerative energy do you have in mind that is of  

A regenerative energy fine-grained enough to be owned personally,
or at least by muncipalities. The idea is both more control for
the end user, market fluidity, and of course no transport costs/losses 
(generation of energy on-site), highly resilient structures (only
tiny cells blacked out), etc. 

An idea technology would be polymer PV foil, which can be rolled
out or be an integral part of an inflatable dome. Add solid-state
air conditioning (with potable water as output), and you've got
the potential for setting up shop anywhere on the planet from
the back of a (EV) truck. 

I think the killer technology is polymer PV panels with a ROI
of about current fossils, or similiar.

> sufficient density?  IIRC we have enough thorium available to run  
> earth's current energy needs for around 10,000 years.   That would  
> seem to justify putting a few our egg[head]s in this basket.

It takes many billions to turn a concept into a reactor product.
Assuming the R&D game is zero sum, I'd rather like to see this
plugged into novel PV, direct methane oxidation, DMFC and similiar.

The nuclear lobby (as well as agriethanol lobby) are already
sufficiently powerful to take whatever they want. They need opposing
friction, not help.
 
> Am I missing something?  Knowing you I would be very surprised if I  

Not really. I've been recently rereading claims of nuclear-industry friendly
sources, which say things like 0.03 $/kWh for France's nuclear electricity,
including entire lifecycle (making it comparable with coal). I find that 
very hard to believe, without further confirmations. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
says already 0.04 EUR/kWh -- can't say how reliable this is, either. 
Uranium is clearly not feasible assuming
a scaled up world demand, but 
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4956/2802/1600/543356/wastegen1.png
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4956/2802/1600/688088/wastegen2.png
do make a reasonably good case. If for whatever reason cheap PV fails
to materialize, Th is certainly an option.

> wasn't.  I look forward to reading what it is.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070213/a57907a4/attachment.bin>