Solar or Fusion?

[Buffy]

Time for a new poll....

 

"Commercially viable" Fusion Power has for the past 50 years been endlessly "available within the next 10 years." Its endlessly waiting for a breakthrough to make it "practical."

 

Solar power has grown slowly as technology as incremental improvements in both photo-voltaic and direct-heating techniques have improved.

 

So this poll is basically the following question:

 

Which will happen first? "Solar will provide the majority of electrical power," or "The first commercially profitable Fusion power plant will go on line." There's a cop out option that says "Fossil fuels will continue to provide the majority of power" (at least as long as humans manage to survive!). Oh and for the heck of it, "Some other new power source will become number one" but if you pick this one you have to say what you think it its.

 

For sticklers: "provide power" is referring specifically to providing land-line-delivered electrical power to homes and/or businesses.

 

Vote! If you're Australian, its the law! :phones:

Buffy

[Jay-qu]

Looking at the options, I would say only 1,2 are viable. 3 would take too long (unless by new you mean not one of these two alternatives) and 4 says we will use fossil fuels forever, which cant happen since they are supposed to run out in the not to distant future.

 

That said I vote 1 because I think the challenge of containing and maintaining fusion has a few more problems to overcome before we seriously need to look elsewhere to supply our ever growing power needs.

[Buffy]

Looking at the options, I would say only 1,2 are viable. 3 would take too long (unless by new you mean not one of these two alternatives)

3 actually can be anything other than 1, 2 or 4: It doesn't have to be anything that hasn't been discovered yet. If you think geothermal will become bigger than fossil fuels before solar does, you should vote for 3, and I would not think you were nuts!

4 says we will use fossil fuels forever, which cant happen since they are supposed to run out in the not to distant future.

Yes, but some folks think there are lots of new sources yet to be discovered: if Antartica melts completely, there may turn out to be gigantic deposits of oil that are all of a sudden available! I personally don't think its likely either, but who knows? And people who hold this opinion certainly have their right to it!

 

Still putting dino-juice in the tank, :hyper:

Buffy

[Tormod]

I chose #1 but I am not sure I actually believe it. Regardless, we're seeing enormous investments in solar energy in Norway, and REC (Renewable Energy Corp) grew out of other projects a few years back into a multi-billion dollar international corporation. If nothing else, it's a sign that investors believe there is a huge potential in this field.

[Jay-qu]

I chose #1 but I am not sure I actually believe it. Regardless, we're seeing enormous investments in solar energy in Norway, and REC (Renewable Energy Corp) grew out of other projects a few years back into a multi-billion dollar international corporation. If nothing else, it's a sign that investors believe there is a huge potential in this field.

And you know what, it matters more what the investors believe, because they are the ones with the money, not us poor scientists!

[Tormod]

Very true, Jay.

[Zythryn]

I chose 3 as it was closest.

I don't believe any power source will provide a majority in the future. I think Wind will provide more than solar within a few years. Solar will regain a larger share once the efficiency can be doubled OR the cost cut dramatically.

Fossil fuels will continue to be used, however their share of the total power generated will decrease over time. I see it as a steady decline, no major shocks.

Even if/when all the issues with making fusion sustainable are solved, I don't see it displacing other energy sources for a few decades. By the end of the century perhaps??

[Pyrotex]

I voted 4 (fossil fuels forever) because the poll was flawed. Three of the four items are "happen first" items, and #4 is already happening NOW. So there!

 

Might I humbly suggest that the poll had been was should have be (the past pluperfect parallel time travel conditional) focused on a "deadline" such as 2050 - and asked what would be the major power source then. More options had been was should have be provided, for example:

= ground solar

= space solar

= nuclear fusion

= nuclear fission

= coal and/or oil

= bio-carbon (burning plant material, methane or alcohol)

= water cycle (rivers, rain, tides, evaporation)

= geothermal

= huge guinea pig exercise wheels run by "excess humans"

= wind or other atmospheric phenomena (lightening?)

[Buffy]

I voted 4 (fossil fuels forever) because the poll was flawed. Three of the four items are "happen first" items, and #4 is already happening NOW. So there!

Sorry, I assumed you nerds would instantly start visualizing a time vs. percentage usage graph and see the crossing points!

 

Of course #4 is happening now, the question is will any other source *ever* surpass it in percentage of popularity: you vote for 4 and you express the opinion that that will *never* happen.

 

I will clarify the fact that I was being colloquial in using the word "majority" and using it to mean "primary"--as in "largest share"--not "more than 50%"...

 

Might I humbly suggest that the poll had been was should have be (the past pluperfect parallel time travel conditional) focused on a "deadline" such as 2050 - and asked what would be the major power source then.

I purposely left off a date precisely *because* fusion is "forever 10 years out" so by not having a completely arbitrary date, you could state an opinion about the relative *significance* of solar vs. fusion without being *forced* into a box on a specific time scale.

More options had been was should have be provided...

That's the next poll! The Conventional Wisdom is that Solar or Fusion are the top candidates for "The Next Big Thing" in power...but obviously, lots of you folks disagree! Cool!

 

So Pyro, *why* pray tell should I resort to dumbing down the question to Gallup Poll standards on a *science* site? :xparty: :D

 

The crossroad above is where we meet, :doh:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...and you express the opinion that that will *never* happen...So Pyro, *why* pray tell should I resort to dumbing down the question to Gallup Poll standards on a *science* site? :xparty: :D...

Because, Sweet Nell, this <<*IS*>> a "science site".

 

Being clear, concise, complete, accurate, unambiguous, engineeringly prolate and intellectually clarified is <<*NOT*>> "dumbing down".

 

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it." :doh:

[Buffy]

Being clear, concise, complete, accurate, unambiguous, engineeringly prolate and intellectually clarified is <<*NOT*>> "dumbing down". :D

Indubitably!

 

But what you suggested dear, is tantamount to saying "stay within the box"--which y'all know I *hate* to do. "Conceptually challenging" is hardly "unclear" or "inaccurate" but it does come up against "concise"...

 

Do you need some graphs? Maybe that would help.... :xparty:

 

He will drink his Supersauce and throw the bad guys for a loss, :doh:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

My vote doesn't count, of course, because I'm such an obtuse rapscallion, but here is my opinion:

 

Fossil fuels will reign supreme for 3 to 4 decades;

then nuclear fission will catch up and dominate for 1 or 2 decades;

then ground solar (in combo with wind and geothermal) will take over for the rest of the century;

about 2100 CE, plus or minus a coupla decades, space solar will become a major player. The energy will be microwaved down to receiving stations in uninhabited areas (such as deserts) and used to feed the power grid.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Pretty much what Pyro said there.

 

I think that we'll see additional sources of organic hydrocarbons (although I hesitate to call them "fossil fuels" since they're not actually from fossils.) TDP and Biodiesel will become more prevalent as Fossil Fuels get more and more expensive.

 

The breakeven point for TDP is around $80 I think. If I read this article right you get about 1 billion barrels of oil every year by recycling US solid waste. (I did that calculation in my head, and figured on roughly a 33% percent return on waste tonnage, and about 7 barrels of oil a ton.)

 

That's about 25% of the US current annual consumption.

 

I look for solar, wind, and cleaner coal to dominate within a century - but for the next forty or fifty years, it's gonna be oil, oil, and more oil.

 

Here's hoping we make it that long.

 

tfs

[TheBigDog]

This biggest problem with solar is keeping your lights on at night. I could blanket my house in solar panels and cut back my consumption through efficiency, maybe supplement with wind power, to run my home needs. But I cannot be slaved to the availability of those energy sources. If I have a battery of batteries that can be recharged and used for say, five years between replacements, and they recharge/discharge with minimum loss of energy then I can begin to say that the problem is solved. As a home owner I should be able to know how many days of power I have available at any time, and see in real time my consumption rate.

 

It is the battery that will make alternate power truly useful.

 

Bill

[Becca]

My parents tried to get one of the well publicised grants for home owners trying to convert to more renewable energy sources. However they were not eligible for help with the massive cost of putting solar panels or a wind turbine on their house because it does not have cavity wall insulation. They live in a converted barn; the cavity they would have to insulate is about a foot deep for all three floors of their house. Until it is financially viable for domestic properties to collect their own energy we are reliant on what we can be provided, which I (pessimistically) think will be fossil fuels up to the point where there are literally none left.

 

To put a brave face on it I voted for some other source.

 

Bec

[Pyrotex]

Solar won't be limited to houses, or just to the daylight hours.

 

In a Sterling Cycle generator, solar energy is used to heat a tank of molten salt. The salt then drives a steam (or some other vapor) turbine for electricity. It is feasible to heat the salt hot enough so that it can continue to generate electricity through the night, using its "stored" solar energy.

 

The ideal use of Solar energy is in large solar "farms" in desert areas, with connection to the power grid.

 

Solar power for a single house should be considered as "maintenance" power, enough to keep the AC ticking over in the day and keep the hot water hot. You would still rely on grid power for really hot days, and all those consumption "peaks" caused by dish washers, hair dryers, recharging the car, and proton colliders. :)

[Zythryn]

My parents tried to get one of the well publicised grants for home owners trying to convert to more renewable energy sources. However they were not eligible for help with the massive cost of putting solar panels or a wind turbine on their house because it does not have cavity wall insulation. They live in a converted barn; the cavity they would have to insulate is about a foot deep for all three floors of their house. Until it is financially viable for domestic properties to collect their own energy we are reliant on what we can be provided, which I (pessimistically) think will be fossil fuels up to the point where there are literally none left.

 

Bec, I would highly recommend the insulation prior to solar panels. Far cheaper and it will save your parents more energy than the solar panels would. Sometimes the simple solutions are still the best:)

 

For most dwellings, this is not an issue as converted barns are rare:)