Earth-sized would be interesting (we know life CAN arise on an Earth-sized planet), but the size is not necessarily meaningful. Venus is almost identical to Earth in size and mass (and thus density), and is of similar distance from the sun, but is utterly inhospitable to Life As We Know It (tm).
This isn't simple, and almost certainly not feasible
Agreed. And, at best, this sort of procedure allows us to put off the inevitable conversion to alternative energy/fuel cells by a (very!) few decades. A better solution? Begin the conversion NOW, convert as quickly as possible, and leave the remaining fossil fuel stocks in the ground JUST IN CASE global warming is occurring (which it seems to be) and JUST IN CASE burning fossil fuels contributes to the phenomena (which at least seems likely).
Just in case anybody is wondering, the solar panels available today are neither "clean, renewable energy" nor cost efficient in terms of long-run payback. In almost all cases, the energy used to produce today's solar panels is greater than will ever be recovered by use within their approximate 10-12 year lifespan.
There may have been some point in the past where the energy payback was negative. The solar industry today claims a 2 year energy payback, and most of that was for fabrication of the aluminum frames. My panels came with a 20 year warranty to produce 90% of their original output. How long do terrestrial (i.e. not orbital) panels last? We don 't know, none have ever worn out.
yes, nuclear is clean power, folks
As long as you ignore radiation, I suppose.
Many solar installations also will never pay for themselves. So basically, today's photovoltaics are in essense expensive batteries.
True in terms of dollars, home-scale solar is something like fifty cents per kwhr, depending on your assumptions of finance cost, and will not pay for itself compared to ten cent grid electricity. However, PV being expensive batteries is just a myth.
Idiot hippy environmentalists speak of cutting dependence on (foreign) oil by moving to electric cars. That'd be nice. How do you intend to handle California's power crisis (remember, 2 years ago) when 10,000,000 Los Angeles commuters are plugging in their cars every night?
Roughly 95% of petroleum use in the US is for transportation, and roughly 98% of the transportation system is powered by petroleum. Switching to electric (really, fuel cells, since lead/acid batteries do not have the power to weight ratio to build the kind of vehicles we want/need to have) does eliminate (or nearly so) the need for petroleum, foreign or domestic. But it does create a need for massive increases in electricity production, as you point out. So we would need to add a lot of solar capacity.
GM corn is probably the most economically feasible way, at this point, to make large quantities of methanol, which could replace gasoline very easily, simply retrofitting existing vehicles and infrastructure.
Actually, I believe it is ethanol that is produced, and then denatured with a small amount of methanol.
While I have not seen any figures on the amount of land it would take to produce that much extra grain, it would clearly be substantial, and our grain surpluses together with the land in CRP (Crop Rotation Program) would likely not be enough to equal the 20 million barrels of petroleum the US consumes daily. I have also read that producing ethanol takes more energy than is present in the fuel produced, probably for distallation. That would make the ethanol a secondary fuel, not a primary one.
Tidal/Solar/Wave power? Sure, they're neat science fair projects for the kiddies, but they're simply not capable of contributing substantially to our energy needs for the forseeble future.
You may be right with regards to tidal power.
Wind power is already being added to the grid in many places (one plant in my state of Colorado, another is planned, lots of capacity being added in Texas). It is cost effective today. Adding large amounts of unbuffered wind power to the grid mix is not feasible because of fluctuations in the production. So, we need to buffer it! Crack water with the wind power, run the grid from fuel cells.
Solar works. Today. This post is being made with solar energy. There is exactly one problem: it is more expensive (by 10x or so) than we are used to paying for electricity.
Nuclear power is the only viable solution.
Fission power works. But for how long? And at what cost?
If we were to switch the US to fission power completely (including powering the transportation system), and continue to use uranium fuel without reprocessing, we would be out of fuel before the plants were all built, let alone depreciated. Reprocessing the fuel would add another 40 or 50 years to the supply. Even if you consider breeder reactors, you get another 1000 years or so of energy. Then what?. Solar will be present for as long as Earth is a viable place to live.
Radioactive waste is produced by and for nuclear plants. It lasts for a long time. It cannot be disposed of. It must be stored until it decays. That takes, for the high level wastes, geologic time. I am sceptical that we can build storage facilities that are secure for 10 times the age of the pyramids. We simply do not have that sort of track record.
Step 1: Create a new legal copyright right, which is not transferrable from the author, and which is considered to be present on all current and future material. This protects authors who, wisely or not, signed off all their rights to the big publishing companies.
Step 2: Declare a reasonable tariff. This is tricky. Consider what proportion of media is used to violate copyright (which will change over time), how much is used for fair use of copyrighted material (not a violation), and what the monetary loss is to the authors (not the 10x or 20x that quantity that is a loss to the publisher). This might amount to a fraction of a penny per gigabyte (for example).
Step 3: Collect the tariffs on new media, and pay royalites to the authors. Why not the big companies? Because the social value of copyright is seeing that authors are compensated, not that currently profitable companies remain profitable. The big companies can continue to prosecute specific cases of copyright infringement under existing statutes.
But how to divide the royalties? Hmmm... This is, of course, a problem with any tariff scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
- Actually I wish the entire idea of a forced Pledge of Allegiance would be done away with.
Indeed. The time would be better spent if children were required to repeat "Association does not prove causation."Earth-sized would be interesting (we know life CAN arise on an Earth-sized planet), but the size is not necessarily meaningful. Venus is almost identical to Earth in size and mass (and thus density), and is of similar distance from the sun, but is utterly inhospitable to Life As We Know It (tm).
Agreed. And, at best, this sort of procedure allows us to put off the inevitable conversion to alternative energy/fuel cells by a (very!) few decades. A better solution? Begin the conversion NOW, convert as quickly as possible, and leave the remaining fossil fuel stocks in the ground JUST IN CASE global warming is occurring (which it seems to be) and JUST IN CASE burning fossil fuels contributes to the phenomena (which at least seems likely).
-
Just in case anybody is wondering, the solar panels available today are neither "clean, renewable energy" nor cost efficient in terms of long-run payback. In almost all cases, the energy used to produce today's solar panels is greater than will ever be recovered by use within their approximate 10-12 year lifespan.
There may have been some point in the past where the energy payback was negative. The solar industry today claims a 2 year energy payback, and most of that was for fabrication of the aluminum frames. My panels came with a 20 year warranty to produce 90% of their original output. How long do terrestrial (i.e. not orbital) panels last? We don 't know, none have ever worn out.-
yes, nuclear is clean power, folks
As long as you ignore radiation, I suppose.-
Many solar installations also will never pay for themselves. So basically, today's photovoltaics are in essense expensive batteries.
True in terms of dollars, home-scale solar is something like fifty cents per kwhr, depending on your assumptions of finance cost, and will not pay for itself compared to ten cent grid electricity. However, PV being expensive batteries is just a myth.Roughly 95% of petroleum use in the US is for transportation, and roughly 98% of the transportation system is powered by petroleum. Switching to electric (really, fuel cells, since lead/acid batteries do not have the power to weight ratio to build the kind of vehicles we want/need to have) does eliminate (or nearly so) the need for petroleum, foreign or domestic. But it does create a need for massive increases in electricity production, as you point out. So we would need to add a lot of solar capacity.
Actually, I believe it is ethanol that is produced, and then denatured with a small amount of methanol.
While I have not seen any figures on the amount of land it would take to produce that much extra grain, it would clearly be substantial, and our grain surpluses together with the land in CRP (Crop Rotation Program) would likely not be enough to equal the 20 million barrels of petroleum the US consumes daily. I have also read that producing ethanol takes more energy than is present in the fuel produced, probably for distallation. That would make the ethanol a secondary fuel, not a primary one.
-
Tidal/Solar/Wave power? Sure, they're neat science fair projects for the kiddies, but they're simply not capable of contributing substantially to our energy needs for the forseeble future.
You may be right with regards to tidal power.Wind power is already being added to the grid in many places (one plant in my state of Colorado, another is planned, lots of capacity being added in Texas). It is cost effective today. Adding large amounts of unbuffered wind power to the grid mix is not feasible because of fluctuations in the production. So, we need to buffer it! Crack water with the wind power, run the grid from fuel cells.
Solar works. Today. This post is being made with solar energy. There is exactly one problem: it is more expensive (by 10x or so) than we are used to paying for electricity.
Fission power works. But for how long? And at what cost?
If we were to switch the US to fission power completely (including powering the transportation system), and continue to use uranium fuel without reprocessing, we would be out of fuel before the plants were all built, let alone depreciated. Reprocessing the fuel would add another 40 or 50 years to the supply. Even if you consider breeder reactors, you get another 1000 years or so of energy. Then what?. Solar will be present for as long as Earth is a viable place to live.
Radioactive waste is produced by and for nuclear plants. It lasts for a long time. It cannot be disposed of. It must be stored until it decays. That takes, for the high level wastes, geologic time. I am sceptical that we can build storage facilities that are secure for 10 times the age of the pyramids. We simply do not have that sort of track record.
Step 2: Declare a reasonable tariff. This is tricky. Consider what proportion of media is used to violate copyright (which will change over time), how much is used for fair use of copyrighted material (not a violation), and what the monetary loss is to the authors (not the 10x or 20x that quantity that is a loss to the publisher). This might amount to a fraction of a penny per gigabyte (for example).
Step 3: Collect the tariffs on new media, and pay royalites to the authors. Why not the big companies? Because the social value of copyright is seeing that authors are compensated, not that currently profitable companies remain profitable. The big companies can continue to prosecute specific cases of copyright infringement under existing statutes.
But how to divide the royalties? Hmmm... This is, of course, a problem with any tariff scheme.