Solar Energy, All Night Long

[hefler]

MIT professor Daniel G. Nocera has long been jealous of plants. He desperately wanted to do what they do--split water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the products to do work. That, he figures, is the only way we humans can solve our energy problems; enough energy pours down from the sun in one hour to power the planet's energy needs for a year.

Solar Energy, All Night Long - Forbes.com

[include]

It seems every potential solution is perpetually 5-10 years away. Is there anything exciting happening tomorrow? Next month? Next year?

[prashamk]

I think that only solutions that we have today is solar. Though we might not be able to run a grid on it. What we can do is use it as much as we can. This would ultimately put lesser load on the grid. Initially we may feel like its all waste as inspite of our actions grids are still working but at some point in future it may feel like the greatest step for mitigating global warming!

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by prashamk

I think that only solutions that we have today is solar

Solutions for what?
Today we have fossils, nuclear and, in specific geographical locations, hydro.
Nothing else is remotely close to meeting demands.

[LMagic007]

I think the bigger problem is not for lack of ideas or technology, but simply rather man himself. Give us all the energy we demand and you can be sure we will demand even more. It's the nature of the beast and I think that will be our biggest challenge. i.e. to say no enough is enough and we won't demand more from or environment, but rather we will accept what we have and try to keep it all in balance.

In this context, at the end of the day, it won't matter how many nuclear power stations or solar power stations or wind farms etc... get built, because at the end of the day man has to decide when enough is enough and until that day, we are always going to be in this catch up dilemma of demanding more of this earth than what is reasonably available.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I think the bigger problem is not for lack of ideas or technology, but simply rather man himself. Give us all the energy we demand and you can be sure we will demand even more. It's the nature of the beast and I think that will be our biggest challenge. i.e. to say no enough is enough and we won't demand more from or environment, but rather we will accept what we have and try to keep it all in balance.

Price will, to a great degree, regulate demand. It might even get people to use CFLs without the need for legislation.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

In this context, at the end of the day, it won't matter how many nuclear power stations or solar power stations or wind farms etc... get built, because at the end of the day man has to decide when enough is enough and until that day, we are always going to be in this catch up dilemma of demanding more of this earth than what is reasonably available.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I think that misses a couple of important points.

Even if we decide now that enough is enough, and that we accept status quo, we would still need the means of supporting that. Fossils are finite. Renewables are nowhere near to taking up the slack. Nuclear can.

Then there is the problem of (or perceived problem of, depending on your stance on AGW) of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.
I don't know about Oz, but UK energy depends on about 75% contribution from fossils. The only other source remotely capable of meeting current energy demand is nuclear. If we had to depend on renewable alone we'd have to cut consumption by about 95%.

Please don't take from this that I am anti-renewables.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Give us all the energy we demand and you can be sure we will demand even more.

True up to a point, but there's only so much even our most base wants can consume. In homes, we can only use so many gadgets, and in business, competition (and other influences) drives efficiency, not just energy costs.

Think of it like a cupboard. The more space we have, more junk we fill it up with. But there comes a point where you can only buy so much crap.

This of course is an exaggrated example, as society often tolerates a range of energy prices before it cuts back on consumption.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Price will, to a great degree, regulate demand. It might even get people to use CFLs without the need for legislation.

Price influences demand and vice-versa, but I doubt that in itself will be sufficient, because price does not factor in unforseen future nor intangible costs or consequences. As one example, man can use up oil until there is little left to meet our infrastructure demands and only the very few wealthy can afford it, but is that a good idea ? or should we plan beyond that and regulate change ? Regulation is based on forward thinking, price is more simply based on demand and supply. Thus regulation will be required and fortunately that's what's happening all be it seemingly slowly.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I think that misses a couple of important points.

Even if we decide now that enough is enough, and that we accept status quo, we would still need the means of supporting that. Fossils are finite. Renewables are nowhere near to taking up the slack. Nuclear can.

Then there is the problem of (or perceived problem of, depending on your stance on AGW) of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels.
I don't know about Oz, but UK energy depends on about 75% contribution from fossils. The only other source remotely capable of meeting current energy demand is nuclear. If we had to depend on renewable alone we'd have to cut consumption by about 95%.

Not really, as I never intended to make those points. I suspect there are even more relevant points missed on such reasoning. I'm not suggesting the inverse of either of your points. I'm merely indicating that to date in history all indications are that whatever capacity to provide man produces, is met by equal or greater demand than that capacity. It's in some ways lead to mans evolutionary advantage but also in some ways could end up being an achillis heel.

Nuclear alone wont solve the worlds energy problems and a 95% drop in consumption due to nenewables is unbelievable, but then so is total dependency on renewables in any short frame of time, which seems to be your inference and the basis of your position.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Wobs

True up to a point, but there's only so much even our most base wants can consume. In homes, we can only use so many gadgets, and in business, competition (and other influences) drives efficiency, not just energy costs.

Think of it like a cupboard. The more space we have, more junk we fill it up with. But there comes a point where you can only buy so much crap.

This of course is an exaggrated example, as society often tolerates a range of energy prices before it cuts back on consumption.

Fair point.
But, of course, it goes a lot further than just domestic use.
If we, in UK, face power cuts because of government prevarication, it will affect pretty much every part of our lives.
Water, transport, hospitals, communications, the industrial and commercial sectors......

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

True up to a point, but there's only so much even our most base wants can consume. In homes, we can only use so many gadgets, and in business, competition (and other influences) drives efficiency, not just energy costs.

Think of it like a cupboard. The more space we have, more junk we fill it up with. But there comes a point where you can only buy so much crap.

This of course is an exaggrated example, as society often tolerates a range of energy prices before it cuts back on consumption.

To date in history all indications are that whatever capacity to provide man produces, is met by equal or greater demand than that capacity.

As indicated, price influences demand and vice-versa, but I doubt that in itself will be sufficient, because price does not factor in unforseen future nor intangible costs or consequences. Prices only control demand to a point where demand drops off and there is insufficient resource left at a given price, to maintain a certain level of consumption. Relying on the free market alone is inadequate, because there is no intelligence embedded in the process and the problems faced are such that they require a minimum level of thought to be properly addressed, beyond simply relying on demand and supply until the system collapses. We have to plan and regulate for change otherwise we put ourselves in a more vulnerable position when most of the energy resources are no longer affordable and out of reach of the majority, which depend on infrastructure based on affordable prices. I think at the end of the day and in the longer term, sustainable ( in the broadest sense ) global population growth can't be ignored as a relevant factor. If we don't get sustainability right, it wont matter what we do in the long run to cope with these problems. Having said that, ultimately nature will end up taking its toll on mankind and that will be the final decider.