possible energy alternative?

[Atlas Swallowed]

http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=409853

Found this interesting and hopeful. My scientific knoledge is limited. Does this seem to be a feasable energy alternatve?

[Severian]

Long run, hopefully it will be. But nuclear fusion as a source of electricity is probably still some time off.

[visceroid]

nuclear fusion is the way of the future... and has been for a very long time. thoug i dont think we are incapable of creating a sustained nuclear fusion reaction, i am sceptical that is is possible soon. but if it is, then great, it would be the ultimate power source

[Atlas Swallowed]

I hpe I live to see the day when fossil fuel is obsoulete :)

[Janus]

I have heard that cold fusion is the only type of fusion that has so far been considered feasible at this point. Nuclear fusion seems to be the perfect energy source since there is practically an unlimited amount of energy if only we could harness it. However, my question is whether having acess to a virtually unlimited energy source is a good thing or not. Since these reactions always result in heat, huge amounts of heat would drive our planet past equilibrium and into some type of ice age.

[encephalon]

I have heard that cold fusion is the only type of fusion that has so far been considered feasible at this point.

Where in the world did you hear that? As far as I know, very few scientists think that cold fusion is remotely possible; and if you're only looking at reputable scientists, the number dwindles to zero.


However, my question is whether having acess to a virtually unlimited energy source is a good thing or not. Since these reactions always result in heat, huge amounts of heat would drive our planet past equilibrium and into some type of ice age.

The great thing about heat is that it can be transformed into other energy forms--say, electricity or motion or light. It wouldn't create vast amounts of heat in the sense that you're thinking, although it would create vast amounts of heat that must quickly be nullified in the fusion process (that is, it does us no good if the process can't be contained within walls that won't melt or destabilize). That's the biggest hurdle for fusion energy, as far as I know.

I may be wrong, but doesn't nuclear fusion already take place in the earth's core? I'm aware of the limitations we currently have with geothermal energy, but it seems to me that those limitations are far easier to solve (in theory) than the limitations on surface-level fusion.

Nor would we have any ugly power plants on the surface (though they'd be underground). It seems to me that a combination between heavy geothermal reliance and solar energy seems the cleanest, most reliable energy source. The depth hurdle would have to be solved, of course, as well as transferring that energy to the surface without much dissipation.. and there'd probably have to be a detailed infrastructure involved (though no more detailed than today's energy sources). But wouldn't this be easier than trying to figure out how to contain nuclear fusion ourselves?

[cccpcommie]

ok explain to me how i may be wrong but cant this be some kind of weapon?..i bet u can use this as a "terroristuc weapon"......

[encephalon]

We already use both fission and fusion in nuclear weapons, as far as I know.

[Janus]

Where in the world did you hear that?
From my environmental science teacher. Well, there are continuing efforts on cold fusion and that is what I was talking about.


The great thing about heat is that it can be transformed into other energy forms--say, electricity or motion or light. It wouldn't create vast amounts of heat in the sense that you're thinking, although it would create vast amounts of heat that must quickly be nullified in the fusion process (that is, it does us no good if the process can't be contained within walls that won't melt or destabilize).
I don't think that the Earth's core undergoes fusion but rather only stars and supernovas. The end result of processes in any system is heat. So you're saying that that heat can still be harnessed? For example, the heat produced from friction can still be harnessed and transformed into a beneficial energy source? Likewise, the massive amount of heat produced from nuclear fusion can still be used as an energy source? I understand that the process must be confined but heat is always the end result of any process within a system. If nuclear fusion is readily available to people then the massive amounts then the massive amounts of heat generated due to its constant use as a practically unlimited source of energy would lead to some sort of heat death. Are there any knowleadgable scientists here who can enlighten me on this?

[ComradeRed]

The Economist wrote a short article on fusion. Apparently it is becoming more and more possible. Recently experiments at UCLA have indicated that fusion, if for nothing else, can be used for handheld x-ray apparati.

I speculate the best energy alternative will come when nanotechnology is used to: create molocules that release energy, increase the effeciency of solar power (to nearly 100%!), or translate molocules to energy directly while under control.

It is not impossible though :)

[RogerRhino]

Cool, I guess. Why don't they just use the real sun?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:58 PM
Cool, I guess. Why don't they just use the real sun?
They do, with solar panels, but that isn't too efficient at this point in time. It would also be hard to completely surround the sun in solar panels and harvest all the energy. Nuclear fusion would be easier.

[ComradeRed]

Unless we could somehow increase the effeciency, even to "only" 40%(!). I have read reports that with nanotechnology it would be closer to 99.99999% (that tiny margin is due to either the uncertainty relation of energy and time or the first law of thermodynamics, whichever).

Imagine that, a square foot on the roof of the car that works with uv rays -- it wouldn't matter if it was cloudy or not! And it would be able to power an SUV without pollution! Imagine that...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:27 AM
I may be wrong, but doesn't nuclear fusion already take place in the earth's core?
Nah. The heat of the earth's core comes from the decay of heavy radioactive elements. Fusion takes place in suns (which is where those heavy elements were made.)

[MilitantAnarchist]

Fuck me, how can anyone think nuclear is the future? we need to stay well clear of that... i've said this to people before, the fact that they only want it to make more fucking bombs, and people say 'no its different nuclear stuff' or whatever... but i remember reading something about in the race for nuclear arms, with russian and the states, we had more nuclear power stations only so we could produce more plutonium.. or whatever it is... i aint a scientist (can you tell? lol)....

I think we need all the 'hippy' energy alternatives (solar, wind, wave) and the future of petrol is hydrogen... its the most abundant element in the universe and it is same price as petrol and u fill your car up basically the same... electric car was a shit idea that should of stayed in the 20th century... i seriously think we need to slow down and think what we're doin (by we i mean the human race not you and me btw)

[Muzk]

the future of petrol is hydrogen...

fail once again

didnt you say fascism works and communism fails?

[MilitantAnarchist]

fail once again

didnt you say fascism works and communism fails?

that was a typo, keep up to date mate...

and what is wrong with that,... the future of petrol is hydrogen... i'm not sure how much simpler i can put that to be honest...

[MilitantAnarchist]

i'm not sure if it is my grammer your getting at or its because you havent heard of hydrogen fuel... but here you go anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MblRtzCaHJo

[Invincible Summer]

But doesn't hydrogen have to be kept at extremely high pressures and is vulnerable to explosions?

[MilitantAnarchist]

But doesn't hydrogen have to be kept at extremely high pressures and is vulnerable to explosions?

Not that i'm aware of... but petrol isn't exactly the most stable of all substances either...

[Q]

Hydrogen is of course not an energy source, but an energy medium. Hydrogen isn't just available in nature, but has to be produced. Electrolyse of water is the most obvious way, but it does cost energy obviously. This electricity has to be produced somewhere aswell. If it is produced in coal plants, nothing is really gained in the grand scale of things.

Fusion energy has a big future I think, especially once we can develop He3 fusion plants. While He3 is rare on Earth, the moon is superabundant on the stuff, so abundant in fact it could power us for thousands of years. By then we probably have come up with a new way to supply our energy needs.

If course mining the He3 on the moon is not childsplay and we still have to develop a lot of technology in order to get there. Also fusion reactors are still in their infancy aswell. But I'm positive that if the plans go on of several countries to go back to the moon in the next decade or so, we can have He3 in enough quantities to power the planet by 2050.

[pranabjyoti]

Hydrogen is of course not an energy source, but an energy medium. Hydrogen isn't just available in nature, but has to be produced. Electrolyse of water is the most obvious way, but it does cost energy obviously. This electricity has to be produced somewhere aswell. If it is produced in coal plants, nothing is really gained in the grand scale of things.

Fusion energy has a big future I think, especially once we can develop He3 fusion plants. While He3 is rare on Earth, the moon is superabundant on the stuff, so abundant in fact it could power us for thousands of years. By then we probably have come up with a new way to supply our energy needs.

You are right, but to produce hydrogen, fusion and other complex energy technology isn't necessary. Electricity can be generated by extracting atmospheric heat very cheaply. And as fresh water and salt are two byproducts of the process, the electricity can be sold at a much cheaper rate and this cheap and environmentally clean electricity can be used to generate hydrogen as fuel.

[MilitantAnarchist]

I dont think raping another planet for our own needs is the way forward... It is the same mentality we have now, a 'capitalist' mentality.
This is for energy ALTERNATIVES... i watched a documentary that was about this, and there are lots of ways to do it like what that guy said ^

In the future, i would like to see homes be powered in a 'hybrid' style, eg solar panel, small turbines, on the houses, but also a main power by clean energy (not nuke) BUT i think for a start the main energy suppliers should provide the solar panels and turbines to combine it with the neanderthal way we do it now.

And i know they would never supply solar panels and turbines because of the cost... but energy companies make MASS profits, and if they kept bills the 'same' even though we'd be using less, for the start, then i think they should do it (i know it isnt good for us and is defeating the object, but we live in capitalism so we have to live with it, this way we get what we want (eventually) and they get their money...) that is just food for thought, a way we could hopefully make a small change…

[Ovi]

First of all about the nuclear fusion stuff. The reason why everyone is excited about it is that it could be a safer than fission, almost limitless source of cheap energy. And that's about it; We would still have to deal with great amounts of radioactive materials, such as tritium, as well as the induced radioactivity, which is caused by the neutrons escaping the reactors (far more than in fission; that's why neutron bombs have a fusion step).

So it's not exactly clean energy, but it is safer than fission because the amount of material in such a reactor is far smaller than one in a fission reactor. Even more, the hydrogen fusion is not exactly based on hydrogen reserves, but on lithium ones since tritium is made from it.

About the heat generated: yes it's a tremendous amount of heat to be disposed of, and yes it does have negative impact on the environment. However, since we already burn fossil fuel for most of our energy, we're talking about the same amount of heat anyway. A lot indeed, but we already do it. Solar and wind power would reduce this extra thermal energy to almost negligible amounts compared to nuclear and fossil fuel.

I must agree with Militant Anarchist about this whole issue; we don't need any new, incredible, inexhaustible sources of energy because we already have them: solar, wind, geothermal and so on. All we need is to care more about our health and the place we call home more than we care about profits.

[Ovi]

And about the hydrogen cars and the hydrogen economy in general; if you ask me it ain't gonna happen; completely inefficient, dangerous and useless. First of all, as Q already stated, hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy accumulator if you wish, the fuel of a battery and a very inefficient battery indeed. For instance, you can store energy in your average mobile phone battery and get it back with 99% efficiency; using water electrolysis and a hydrogen fuel cell it's less than 50%. So why not use batteries instead?

[Q]

First of all about the nuclear fusion stuff. The reason why everyone is excited about it is that it could be a safer than fission, almost limitless source of cheap energy. And that's about it; We would still have to deal with great amounts of radioactive materials, such as tritium, as well as the induced radioactivity, which is caused by the neutrons escaping the reactors (far more than in fission; that's why neutron bombs have a fusion step).
You're confused. You're probably talking about first generation fusion fuels. I however am talking about second and third generation fuels. Some background:


Some fusion processes produce highly energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive) through the continuous bombardment of the reactor's components with emitted neutrons. Because of this bombardment and irradiation, power generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_generation) must occur indirectly through thermal means, as in a fission reactor. However, the appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy by-product, the proton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton), can be contained using electric and magnetic fields. The momentum energy of this proton (created in the fusion process) will interact with the containing electromagnetic field, resulting in direct net electricity generation.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#cite_note-13)Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Fusion_reactions

Added emphasis. It should be noted that even first generation fusion fuels pose no threat in radioactive waste on the scale that fission does: it is far less in quantity and the halftime is also far less.


So it's not exactly clean energy, but it is safer than fission because the amount of material in such a reactor is far smaller than one in a fission reactor. Even more, the hydrogen fusion is not exactly based on hydrogen reserves, but on lithium ones since tritium is made from it.Lithium? You mean Deuterium? Again, those are all first generation fuels, which indeed pose some minor problems.

Also, a fusion reaction is inherently safe because the biggest that can go wrong is that the reactor dies out like a candle. A melt down type scenario like we know from fission reactors are physically impossible.


About the heat generated: yes it's a tremendous amount of heat to be disposed of, and yes it does have negative impact on the environment. However, since we already burn fossil fuel for most of our energy, we're talking about the same amount of heat anyway. A lot indeed, but we already do it. Solar and wind power would reduce this extra thermal energy to almost negligible amounts compared to nuclear and fossil fuel.He3 wouldn't work on thermal power generation, but on direct current generation. That is its great appeal.


I must agree with Militant Anarchist about this whole issue; we don't need any new, incredible, inexhaustible sources of energy because we already have them: solar, wind, geothermal and so on. All we need is to care more about our health and the place we call home more than we care about profits.I agree that making profits is a fundamental problem in the whole scheme of things. I'd like to think geothermal energy has a lot of potential too. Solar and wind have their uses in private homes, but I don't see industries being run on it with the current type of technology. Also, there are environmental issues. Say for example that in order to harvest enough sunlight energy to power Europe, we build a giant photovoltaic collector park in the Sahara desert. That would mean that quite a large area would suddenly reflect off a lot of heat too, meaning a drop in temperature and climatological change. Also, such a huge endeavor would take huge amounts of resources aswell, vastly more then generating the same power by He3 fusion reactors ;)

[Ovi]

You're confused. You're probably talking about first generation fusion fuels. I however am talking about second and third generation fuels. Some background:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Fusion_reactions

What you say is cute but nobody tries to fuse helium, but tritium. It will take decades to achieve even this and only after that will helium even be considered. Wikipedia:

However, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, side reactions (21H + 21H and 32He+ 32He) will occur, the first of which is not aneutronic. Therefore in practice this reaction is unlikely to ever be completely 'clean', thus negating some of its attraction. Also, due to the higher Coulomb barrier, the temperatures required for 21H + 32He fusion are much higher than those of conventional 2H + 31H (deuterium + tritium) fusion.So, not even your wonder helium 3 fusion ain't clean and it's way harder to achieve.


It should be noted that even first generation fusion fuels pose no threat in radioactive waste on the scale that fission does: it is far less in quantity and the halftime is also far less.

Smaller half-time means more radioactive. And I'm not talking about tritium only, but all the induced radioactivity in the building materials which needs to be safely disposed. That reminds me of the way fission power works by the way.


Lithium? You mean Deuterium? Again, those are all first generation fuels, which indeed pose some minor problems.

No, I mean lithium.
First generation fuels are far easier to use and we still have yet to come up with a working reactor. Guess what nuclear fusion reactors will be built for centuries if this technology gets developed. Will it be based on the abundant lithium supplies to create tritium and much lower temperature needed that helium 3, or will it be helium 3 mined from the moon? Wait for it.....almost there.... here it is: tritium.


Also, a fusion reaction is inherently safe because the biggest that can go wrong is that the reactor dies out like a candle. A melt down type scenario like we know from fission reactors are physically impossible.

Safer (possibility of accidents almost zero) doesn't mean clean. Yes it's safer than fission. And yes it's cleaner. That doesn't mean it's clean, but that it's somewhat cleaner than fission.


He3 wouldn't work on thermal power generation, but on direct current generation. That is its great appeal.

Wikipedia:

Most design studies for fusion power plants involve using the fusion reactions to create heat, which is then used to operate a steam turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine), which drives generators to produce electricity. Except for the use of a thermonuclear heat source, this is similar to most coal-fired power stations and fission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)-driven nuclear power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power) stations.So much with your direct current generation.


I agree that making profits is a fundamental problem in the whole scheme of things. I'd like to think geothermal energy has a lot of potential too. Solar and wind have their uses in private homes, but I don't see industries being run on it with the current type of technology. Also, there are environmental issues. Say for example that in order to harvest enough sunlight energy to power Europe, we build a giant photovoltaic collector park in the Sahara desert. That would mean that quite a large area would suddenly reflect off a lot of heat too, meaning a drop in temperature and climatological change. Also, such a huge endeavor would take huge amounts of resources aswell, vastly more then generating the same power by He3 fusion reactors ;)
On the contrary, in order to generate electricity you need to absorb that sunlight, not reflect into space. And who said anything about Sahara? Unlike fusion/fossil fuel, solar power can take a decentralized approach: solar panels on roofs for instance. And while solar/wind power could make up for much of the world energy consumption under a socialist society, it would have a hard time when it comes to the current energy waste in developed countries.

[revolution inaction]

On the contrary, in order to generate electricity you need to absorb that sunlight, not reflect into space. And who said anything about Sahara? Unlike fusion/fossil fuel, solar power can take a decentralized approach: solar panels on roofs for instance.

The best way to generate lots of power from solar energy is to build large concentrated thermal solar plants in places with high levels of sun light, like the sahara.


And while solar/wind power could make up for much of the world energy consumption under a socialist society, it would have a hard time when it comes to the current energy waste in developed countries.

Actual wind power by its self has the theoretical potential to produce several time the current total world energy consumption, see this study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.full.pdf+html), summarised here (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0622-hance_global_wind.html).
Solar power on the other hand is much better, it has the potential to produce thousands of time the current energy consumed.
Of cause using just one energy source is a bit silly, it'd make a lot more sense to use a combination of solar, wind, geothermal etc. including fusion when its ready.

[Ovi]

The best way to generate lots of power from solar energy is to build large concentrated thermal solar plants in places with high levels of sun light, like the sahara.

Or you could put them in space. But there is more to that than location; it's about transporting that energy, transporting a lot of materials back and forth from the factories and to the desert, the environmental impact, the current political problems associated with concentrating something as valuable as energy in a few places and so on. If we could cover all our energy needs with rooftop solar panels (you could concentrate the light and rotate the roof to increase output, use stirling engines maybe...) and nearby wind turbines most of these problems would be solved.


Actual wind power by its self has the theoretical potential to produce several time the current total world energy consumption, see this study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/19/0904101106.full.pdf+html), summarised here (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0622-hance_global_wind.html).
Solar power on the other hand is much better, it has the potential to produce thousands of time the current energy consumed.
Of cause using just one energy source is a bit silly, it'd make a lot more sense to use a combination of solar, wind, geothermal etc. including fusion when its ready.
I know it does. But I believe it's much easier to reduce the needs than cover the sahara desert with solar panels (yes I know you don't have to cover the entire desert, but a small fraction.)

[Q]

What you say is cute but nobody tries to fuse helium, but tritium. It will take decades to achieve even this and only after that will helium even be considered. Wikipedia:
So, not even your wonder helium 3 fusion ain't clean and it's way harder to achieve.
For clarity's sake: Tritium and Helium-3 are two different isotopes. Tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons) is radioactive, Helium-3 (two protons, one neutron) is not. Because it is indeed relatively easier to fuse, tritium is a viable candidate for a first generation fusion reactor. But it hardly efficient for the reasons you point out. Once we gain more knowledge in handling fusing processes, helium-3 will become a viable option and will indeed provide a vast improvement. Said differently: first generation are a necessary step in terms of engineering, but a very temporary one.


Smaller half-time means more radioactive. And I'm not talking about tritium only, but all the induced radioactivity in the building materials which needs to be safely disposed. That reminds me of the way fission power works by the way.
Tritium is not a beta-radiation emitter, in lay man terms: it cannot penetrate your skin. As such it can safely be stored above ground and no need for huge concrete bunkers either.


First generation fuels are far easier to use and we still have yet to come up with a working reactor. Guess what nuclear fusion reactors will be built for centuries if this technology gets developed. Will it be based on the abundant lithium supplies to create tritium and much lower temperature needed that helium 3, or will it be helium 3 mined from the moon? Wait for it.....almost there.... here it is: tritium.
On what are you basing that? You make it sound as if the moon is completely unreachable. This isn't 1969 anymore. And while we indeed have to develop several technologies in order to feasibly mine He3 on the moon in an engineering sense (obviously), it is very much possible. Costly? Yes. But the benefits outweigh the costs in this respect given that He3 fusion is quite high on energy delivery.


Safer (possibility of accidents almost zero) doesn't mean clean. Yes it's safer than fission. And yes it's cleaner. That doesn't mean it's clean, but that it's somewhat cleaner than fission.
How is He3 fusion polluting? Thus far you've only talked about first generation fuels, to which you have a (minor) point.


So much with your direct current generation.
Again, look into He3 fusion.


On the contrary, in order to generate electricity you need to absorb that sunlight, not reflect into space.
Sunlight will always be reflected. And I'm not so much concerned about the light, as I am about reflecting the heath over vast surfaces.

And who said anything about Sahara?
It is an often heard proposal in order to harvest enough energy for a continent like Europe. You don't think that with some PV panels on the roofs of houses we're going to power the whole of society, do you?

Unlike fusion/fossil fuel, solar power can take a decentralized approach: solar panels on roofs for instance.
Ideal for homes, what about industry?

And while solar/wind power could make up for much of the world energy consumption under a socialist society, it would have a hard time when it comes to the current energy waste in developed countries.
Of course we can use our energy more efficiently. An obvious example is the replacement of the old lightbulb by LED lamps. However, as our society develops, we'll use more energy regardless I'm afraid. Look at the technological development of the last 50 years and project that towards 50 years into the future. Even with socialist planning more energy requirements are highly likely.

[Ovi]

For clarity's sake: Tritium and Helium-3 are two different isotopes. Tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons) is radioactive, Helium-3 (two protons, one neutron) is not. Because it is indeed relatively easier to fuse, tritium is a viable candidate for a first generation fusion reactor. But it hardly efficient for the reasons you point out. Once we gain more knowledge in handling fusing processes, helium-3 will become a viable option and will indeed provide a vast improvement. Said differently: first generation are a necessary step in terms of engineering, but a very temporary one.

Says who? Helium-3 is not better at all; it's scarce and hard to fuse. Tritium-deuterium fusion is a much better alternative.


Tritium is not a beta-radiation emitter, in lay man terms: it cannot penetrate your skin. As such it can safely be stored above ground and no need for huge concrete bunkers either.

Surprisingly or not, tritium is a beta-radiation emitter. :lol: . (I believe this is what you wanted to say). It can't penetrate your skin, but being hydrogen, it forms (heavy) water which you easily absorb. Once inside your body, beta radiation is anything but harmless.


On what are you basing that? You make it sound as if the moon is completely unreachable. This isn't 1969 anymore. And while we indeed have to develop several technologies in order to feasibly mine He3 on the moon in an engineering sense (obviously), it is very much possible. Costly? Yes. But the benefits outweigh the costs in this respect given that He3 fusion is quite high on energy delivery.

I'm not talking about what we could do, but what we can do today! Surely 100 years into the future we might be able to do this but we need alternative energy sources now.


How is He3 fusion polluting? Thus far you've only talked about first generation fuels, to which you have a (minor) point.

I already quoted this.

However, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, side reactions (21H + 21H and 32He+ 32He) will occur, the first of which is not aneutronic. Therefore in practice this reaction is unlikely to ever be completely 'clean', thus negating some of its attraction. Also, due to the higher Coulomb barrier, the temperatures required for 21H + 32He fusion are much higher than those of conventional 2H + 31H (deuterium + tritium) fusion.

Sunlight will always be reflected. And I'm not so much concerned about the light, as I am about reflecting the heath over vast surfaces.

And sand also reflects much more than a solar panel. So?


It is an often heard proposal in order to harvest enough energy for a continent like Europe. You don't think that with some PV panels on the roofs of houses we're going to power the whole of society, do you?

Actually I do. Why do you ask? :lol:


Ideal for homes, what about industry?

Industry could use the electricity produced by the houses (plus wind turbines, geothermal plants...).


Of course we can use our energy more efficiently. An obvious example is the replacement of the old lightbulb by LED lamps. However, as our society develops, we'll use more energy regardless I'm afraid. Look at the technological development of the last 50 years and project that towards 50 years into the future. Even with socialist planning more energy requirements are highly likely.
Why? If the population won't increase in country X, why do we need more and more energy? Why do we need exponential consumption with time?

[revolution inaction]

Or you could put them in space. But there is more to that than location; it's about transporting that energy,

the electricity can be transported through a high voltage direct current grid, some could also be converted to hydrogen, for use as fule or for producing other chemicals.



transporting a lot of materials back and forth from the factories and to the desert,

ships, trains and lorries are common means to transport large amounts of things, so i dont really see the problem.



the environmental impact,

what environmental impact does putting lots of solar plants in a desert have? anyway it makes little difference to whether it is possible or not




the current political problems associated with concentrating something as valuable as energy in a few places and so on.

This also has nothing to do with whether its possible. With the current political situation we have no say anyway and in a socialist society it would not be an issue.



If we could cover all our energy needs with rooftop solar panels (you could concentrate the light and rotate the roof to increase output, use stirling engines maybe...) and nearby wind turbines most of these problems would be solved.

stirling engines are a kind of heat engine, so you are describing a form of concentrated thermal solar power. CTSP dosn't work when its is cloudy, which it often is in large parts of europe, asia, north america, etc.
The kind of solar power that works when it is cloudy is solar photovoltaic, this generates electricity directly from sun light. This can be used to provide some of the power needed but i dont see any reason why solar farms in deserts could not be used to, especial for powering industry, and transportation.



I know it does. But I believe it's much easier to reduce the needs than cover the sahara desert with solar panels (yes I know you don't have to cover the entire desert, but a small fraction.)
I don't have anything against unnecessary energy usage, but my point was that its completely possible to produce all the energy that we currently use from renewable sources, it has nothing to do with desirability.

[Ovi]

the electricity can be transported through a high voltage direct current grid, some could also be converted to hydrogen, for use as fule or for producing other chemicals.

ships, trains and lorries are common means to transport large amounts of things, so i dont really see the problem.

And you can also use more solar panels in temperate areas to cover the demand. Your point is?



what environmental impact does putting lots of solar plants in a desert have? anyway it makes little difference to whether it is possible or not

Someone was talking about them. I don't think they'd be much of an issue, but is worth mentioning


This also has nothing to do with whether its possible. With the current political situation we have no say anyway and in a socialist society it would not be an issue.

There's more to it than just it's possible . We must choose the best solution, since all solutions are possible.


stirling engines are a kind of heat engine, so you are describing a form of concentrated thermal solar power. CTSP dosn't work when its is cloudy, which it often is in large parts of europe, asia, north america, etc.

Sure, but concentrated solar energy can be way more efficient (as conversion to electricity) to make up for the loss due to clouds. Also it might require less energy to produce the equipment since there is a lower need for PV modules.


The kind of solar power that works when it is cloudy is solar photovoltaic, this generates electricity directly from sun light. This can be used to provide some of the power needed but i dont see any reason why solar farms in deserts could not be used to, especial for powering industry, and transportation.

On a cloudy day, less than half (even 5%) of the energy is available anyway. The higer efficiency concentrated PV might do better. The best solution can only be found by math, not by negotiating.


I don't have anything against unnecessary energy usage, but my point was that its completely possible to produce all the energy that we currently use from renewable sources, it has nothing to do with desirability.
Yes it is. However a higher power demand means a higher demand for materials, mining, working and so on.