43 replies to this topic

[quadclops]

Here's some people turning meat rendering plant waste into oil!

I love this idea! All it seems to need is a little scaling-up and we could end our dependancy on foriegn oil imports, just by eating more poultry. [thumb]

Hey, anytime I can justify eating more chicken nuggets by telling myself I'm doing something good for my country and the world, I'm happy. [tung]

[knite]

Well, i just mention ZPE because its the most universal thing there is. Doesnt even require a star like solar panels do. Solar panels would be virtually useless once you got a certain distance from the sun in the black murk between stars, relatively little light. As for the meaty-oil, I just want oil to go away all together. Mabye then the true future power sources can have room to breathe(add to that the fact that bio fuels will SEVERELY impact people fuel sources, aka food.). Cold fusion sounds like its gained ALOT of ground in the 20 or so years its been shunned.

[Chip]

Sonofusion pioneer calls for Apollo type program for cold fusion development.

Time to Act! by Haiko Lietz, July 25, 2005

Theoretically cold fusion is not explained, but practically it is proven.

Got to appreciate the humility of this scientist. Even though his own research has demonstrated a promising source of hot fusion derived energy, he does not dismiss the over-all picture and calls for the emphasis in research to be done in cold fusion as the most promising of energy production research.

[Lazarus Long]

Improved nuclear fuels and the Chinese test their Fusion reactor with claims of success.

China tests thermonuclear fusion reactor: report
Thu Sep 28, 8:17 AM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese scientists made their first successful test of a thermonuclear fusion reactor on Thursday, raising the energy-hungry country's profile in the new but uncertain technology that promises clean power, state media reported.

Scientists develop more powerful nuclear fuel
By Scott DiSavino
Fri Sep 29, 1:56 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have designed a reactor fuel that they believe can make nuclear power plants 50 percent more powerful and safer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

[AdamSummerfield]

I think that if the human race survives this long, that we will eventually have to cleave apart entire stars for our Empire's energy needs.

[AdamDavis]

... our Empire's energy needs...

Why do you think there'll be any such thing as an empire in the future? Imperialism is an obsolete ideal.

[geost]

Latest newsletter from New Energy times is available online with coverage of the 13th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, held in June at Dagomys, Sochi, Russia :

http://newenergytime.../2007/NET24.htm

[Luna]

I highly doubt we will have an energy problem, ever.
Not counting the next 100 years of course

[niner]

I can't imagine this has not been discussed but how about solar panels in space and microwaving the energy to earth?

This idea incurrs a vast expense from building a large solar infrastructure in space, unknown safety and environmental issues from the microwave flux, and the social disadvantages of hugely centralized energy production (much as we have today with conventional methods). The only significant advantage it offers is the improvement in insolation (a factor of 4, give or take, I'd imagine). The cost of building in space is so absurdly high as to make this a non-starter. It's been said that even if there were solid gold nuggets orbiting the earth, and all we had to do was go scoop them up, it would not be worth the launch cost. Launch costs will certainly decline in the future, but I doubt they will ever be low enough to compete with terrestrial solar, such as low-cost cells on the rooftop of a grid connected building, where the maximum energy production coincides with maximum energy consumption of the building, thus eliminating the need for a storage system.

[synaesthetic]

I'm extremely excited about the possibilities of exponential increases in nano-solar technology!

[Lazarus Long]

(niner)This idea incurrs a vast expense from building a large solar infrastructure in space, unknown safety and environmental issues from the microwave flux, and the social disadvantages of hugely centralized energy production (much as we have today with conventional methods). The only significant advantage it offers is the improvement in insolation (a factor of 4, give or take, I'd imagine).

I divided the parts of your post into the two distinct aspects because I disagree somewhat about the pros and cons. There are good reasons to begin this today and bad ones. There are also more viable approaches and less.

Part of the problem revolves around the manner of transmission for the power but the best way to not drastically speed up global warming is to use microwaved downlinks but even that could be misused as an orbital weapon, will still heat up water vapor and transfer large amounts of extra solar thermal radiation but could also be used to diffuse dangerous hurricanes before they came onshore.

The second collection transmission method is far simpler but also far more controversial as it would directly heat up the arctic and antarctic regions during their twilight and night. This could be accomplished simply by using large gossamer membrane mirrors made of molecular thick nanomembranes, manufactured on earth and unfolded in space using inflatable tech that requires almost no major structural component but instead unfurls like an immense jellyfish.

These types of packages could be extremely lightweight yet immense and able to be woven together relatively simply with velcro. They have the ability to make large regions of Canada and other places accessible for migration and agricultural development however the down side should be obvious in terms of even greater accelerated global warming.

The concentrated and reflected light could be simply beamed to the cities most northern (and southern) most cities initially to diminish the need for as much energy use in lighting but as the subsequent modulars of mirrors get attached it increases not only the thermal energy reflected to Earth but the ability for ground based PV cells to increase their efficiency.

Again the pros and cons of this approach are obvious. For the moment the cons outweigh the pros but that could change.

The cost of building in space is so absurdly high as to make this a non-starter. It's been said that even if there were solid gold nuggets orbiting the earth, and all we had to do was go scoop them up, it would not be worth the launch cost. Launch costs will certainly decline in the future, but I doubt they will ever be low enough to compete with terrestrial solar, such as low-cost cells on the rooftop of a grid connected building, where the maximum energy production coincides with maximum energy consumption of the building, thus eliminating the need for a storage system.

Both the delivery methods and actual mission targets/profiles must change and I expect the competition of poorer nations in the coming decade to alter the approach to off world development. Our mission objectives have been skewed to the wrong objectives. For example the Mars mission.

We have much more to gain from farming NEO's first than going to Mars but more importantly capturing and developing NEO's would mean a cheap and reliable means of getting to Mars. Even a Moon base makes more sense than an immediate push to Mars and putting up an orbital Solar collector makes much more sense in that respect because it could transmit power down to the Moon. A tight E-Beam can function at a very great level of efficiency and an E-Beam (electron beam just like in your CRT basically) could not be used to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere and thus would be politically neutral as an orbital weapon.

More importantly an E-Beam could be used to power developmental spacecraft being sent (both manned and robotic) by supplying the energy needs of plasma pulse MHD Drives (magneto hydrodynamic) and offsetting the requirements of having large amounts of fuel on board. This increases the payload capability of the craft and diminishes the thrust requirement of pushing fuel as payload.

I won't go into the ability to get off world here but just let me say that soon we are going to see a whole new category of approaches and some are going to come from the competition. However the basic point is that means of building in space changes drastically once we have we bases of operation up there and MATERIALS to work with.

The two basic building blocks for making this happen are both associated with capture missions; one for asteroids and the other for comets (or cometary fragments). One brings building materials and the other provides life sustaining water and atmosphere. Together they begin reliable, viable off world development and practical way stations for accelerated development off world.

Solar orbital robotic E-Beam stations could power these initial capture missions so that they could go outbound with far less power needs and more survival and operating equipment instead. Once in place they could process the objects and use the some of the material of the objects as reaction mass to help move them into Earth capture orbits that bring the material to us and eliminate potential future collision threats at the same time.

[Lazarus Long]

It seems that we are not alone in paying attention to this avenue of possibility.

http://news.yahoo.co...v0NOUrkBigE1vAI

Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security

Leonard David
Special Correspondent, Space News
SPACE.com Wed Sep 19, 5:45 PM ET

BRECKENRIDGE, Colorado – The deployment of space platforms that capture sunlight for beaming down electrical power to Earth is under review by the Pentagon, as a way to offer global energy and security benefits – including the prospect of short-circuiting future resource wars between increasingly energy-starved nations.

A proposal is being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10 percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050, perhaps sooner, could be produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is being eyed to occur within the next five to seven years.

A mix of advocates, technologists and scientists, as well as legal and policy experts, took part in Space Based Solar Power – Charting a Course for Sustainable Energy, a meeting held here September 6-7 and sponsored by the United States Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies and the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.

Energy from space: Tangible commodity

"I truly believe that space based solar power will become the first sellable, tradable commodity that's delivered by space that everybody on the planet can have part of," said Colonel (Select) Michael Smith, Chief, Future Concepts in the National Security Space Office and director of the SBSP study. To bolster such a vision, establishing a partnership of government, commercial and international entities is under discussion, he added, to work on infrastructure development that, ultimately, culminates in the fielding of space based solar power.

The U.S. Department of Defense has an "absolute urgent need for energy," Smith said, underscoring the concern that major powers around the world – not just the United States – could end up in a major war of attrition in the 21st century. "We've got to make sure that we alleviate the energy concerns around the globe," he said.

"Energy may well be the first tangible commodity returned from space," said Joseph Rouge, Associate Director of the National Security Space Office. "Geopolitics in general is going to be a large issue. I don't think there's any question that energy is going to be one of the key next issues, along with water ... that's going to be the competition we're going to fight."

Rouge said that moving out on the proposed SBSP effort would be the largest space venture yet, making the Apollo Moon landing project "look like just a small little program." As a caveat, however, he noted that the U.S. Department of Defense is cash-strapped and is not the financial backer for such an endeavor.

"But do look to us to help you develop the technologies and developing a lot of the other infrastructure," Rouge advised, seeing SBSP, for instance, as helping to spur a significant reduction in the cost of routine access to space for the U.S. and its allies.

Trends of concern

There is a compelling argument of synergy between energy security, space security and national security, observed Col. Michael Hornitschek, Co-Chair of the National Security Space Office Architecture Study on Space Based Solar Power.

Hornitschek flagged "trends of concern" in dealing with the world-wide energy challenge, citing global population and escalating energy demands, as well as the portent of climate change. He also referred to U.S. loss in global market share and leadership, in addition to declines in research and development investments and a skilled workforce.

Although space based solar power has been studied since the 1970s – by the Department of Energy, NASA, the European Space Agency, as well as the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency – Hornitschek said that the idea has generally "fallen between the cracks" because no organization is responsible for both space programs and energy security.

Over the last few decades, the march of technology useful to SBSP has been significant, said Neville Marzwell, Manager of Advanced Concepts and Technology Innovation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"We have made tremendous progress in technology from 1977 to 2007," Marzwell reported. He pointed to advances in micro and nano-electronics, lightweight inflatable composite structures, ultra-small power management devices, as well as laboratory demonstration of photovoltaic arrays that are close to 68 percent conversion efficiency.

Still, there's work to be done, Marzwell emphasized, specifically in wireless power beaming. By modularizing SBSP platforms, the work can start small and foster batch production to keep price per unit costs down while evolving a bigger energy market, he said.

Home run kind of situation

Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia.

"There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained.

Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting.

"It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added.

"I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

Demonstration via satellite

As current director of the SBSP study for the National Security Space Office, Smith said that demonstrations of beamed energy from space – utilizing both breadboard lab tests and by using space assets – are vital. One possibility is to extrapolate meaningful lessons from signal transmissions by already orbiting communication satellites, he said, be they U.S. assets or experiments done with partners elsewhere around the world.

An orbiting SBSP demonstration spacecraft must be a useful tool, Smith added, to deliver energy while retiring science questions and identifying risk areas for next phase SBSP development. Conceptually, a locale to receive test broadcasts of beamed energy from space could be Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, he noted.

Mankins told Space News that the International Space Station could also be a venue from which to conduct a whole range of in-space SBSP-related experiments on relevant component technologies or subsystem technologies. "The space station is perfect for that," he said, perhaps making use of Japan's still-to-be-lofted experiment module, Kibo, and its Exposed Facility located outside of the pressurized module.

To engage in an open public discussion of space solar power, go to this website sponsored by the Space Frontier Foundation: http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/

* Space Based Power System Needed to Solve Earth's Energy Woes

* Moonbeams to Power Earth

* Space Power For An Energy-Hungry Earth? 

[johnf]

I can't imagine this has not been discussed but how about solar panels in space and microwaving the energy to earth?

Ditto. Solar Power Satellites must be mentioned, and should be remembered as a long term source for the planet and the solar system-wide civilization.

Energy from Space for Earth Economies -- Solar Power Satellites
http://permanent.com/p-sps.htm

1. Where are you going to put the harmful waste products from the result of using Uranium as an energy source?
2. In conjunction with question 1; It takes a long time for the waste product to be safe. Even now, at present time, it is difficult to find areas where to put the stuff; much less what an increase in nuclear power will yield.

A good one I need to hear more about, is tectonic subduction zones. Encapsulate wastes in ceramicrete/concrete of some sort, and drop it over the side of a ship over a subduction zone. It'll bury itself in the sea bottom mud, where in a few centuries, continental drift takes it back down under the mantle. If any of it finds its way back up to the surface before everything's decayed below the background for lava, it'll be a few molecules per cubic km of basalt.

This only goes for the true waste, like contaminated tools, clean room suits, brooms and garbage from the production of fuel elements. I point out that most of the mass of what we call "radioactive waste" is spent fuel, and it's purely a political decision to not reprocess it to use it in breeders to get more energy than was produced in the first fuel cycle (and more also than the cost of reprocessing it)

Concerns of weapons proliferation are political, not technical, and I strongly doubt that it's impossible to safe guard it adequately. Look at the diamond industry: I doubt that they let a decigram of material "go missing", and this for material that can't be easily detected if it's concealed under clothing -and which won't burn your gonads off if you have it under your clothes!
Another thing to consider, along with breeders and any nuclear fuel cycle industry is the final use of what comes out of breeders, what most would call the worst: weapons grade Pu.
Solution proposed: nuclear pulse spaceships -AKA good old fashioned dirty politically incorrect Project Orion. If a global breeder industry puts out tens of tons per year of Pu, then blow it off into the solar wind planting the seeds of asteroid industries, so that eventually there'll be no more need for Earth-bound nuclear industries, or any heavy polluting industries at all.


Granted, none of this, possibly including fission or solar/wind is going to revolutionize things fast enough to help immediately (~the next 20 years) Immediate need: mandate by law that within 2 years, all new cars sold be flex fuel capable. Spur an increase in demand for ethanol/methanol, and then maybe see about subsidizing more outlets to serve this demand.
Kick the agents of the Saudi royal family and OPEC out of both major political parties, (as well, they have the single largest lobbying firm inside the beltway. Burn it down, maybe before it's evacuated), and impeach/indict any politician who's in bed with them or any big oil/big industry.
Majority of our energy problem solved.