Decentralisation of energy production

[DEPAVER]

Short on time, but here are few points about it nukes...

There actually is a safe reactor blueprint that is operating in France, but the United States would never copy anything the French do, especially with the Repugs in power.

There is no good alternative to store something safely for 10,000 years.

The price of uranium has increased by something like 1000% since the early 1990's. Not an exact figure, but close enough.

Unfortunately, when you factor the number of new nukes required based on energy projections, there simply isn't enough money or enough qualified engineers to make this a viable alternative in the United States.

The only sustainable energy use is decentralized energy. Point of use wind, solar, possibly small scall hydro, etc. Centralized energy production is another clever way of keeping the current power system in place, which is also built on a hierarchical, centralized model.

Forget nukes and consider decentralized, bioregionally based green production.

I'll try to post more detailed information later....

[socialistfuture]

should we start a decentralized energy thread; with DIY instructions too.

[Qabane]

Please do Socialistfuture, but bear in mind some of it needs to be DIY for people like me in third world countries without access to high levels of technology.

But I am very interested in a thread with DIY instructions related to decentralised energy sources.

In South Africa our government is in the process of looking at multiple, small Pebble-Bed Reactors, but the reality of uranium depletion and its peak extraction have freaked the policy makers out just a little. They are beginning to understand that it really isn't renewable in the true sense of the word.

But I eagerly await our thread,
Amandla Awethu!

[Sentinel]

The only sustainable energy use is decentralized energy. Point of use wind, solar, possibly small scall hydro, etc.

The problem would at present be the inability to produce enough energy for all humanitys needs with those methods. I'm optimistic about the prospect of solar power developing into a considerable source of energy in the future, wind perhaps to a smaller degree.

But should we at the moment suddenly abolish both nuclear, oil, coal, and (except to a small degree) hydro plants altogether and replace them with 'decentralised green alternatives' we would face a considerable lowering of living standards at the best, but more likely an outright humanitarian catastrophe.

I'm afraid we won't see a sufficient replacement for nuclear fission until nuclear fusion, and yeah, we will have to wait. The international proletariat will never support plans to cut the power and replace it with decentralised (at the moment) crap methods, so a large scale revolution to accomplish that is out of the question. So as I see it, terrorist strikes are what remain as methods to realise such plans..

But that's just me, please elaborate on your theories and prove me wrong!


Centralized energy production is another clever way of keeping the current power system in place, which is also built on a hierarchical, centralized model.

I can see your reasoning: he who controls the power switch controls society. It's true. But the reasonable way to deal with the problem is not to break the switch, and tell everyone to light candles and jump on the place to keep themselves warm! No, the existant, centralised energy production must be nationalised and kept in place as communal property until the decentralised, alternative methods can aptly, sufficiently replace it.

In short: I agree that energy production should be decentralised, in order to increase local autonomy and prevent power gathering in the hands of a central authority -- but only once we have the realistic opportunity to do so without inflicting damage on the effiency of the society as a whole and the living standards of people.

In my ideal society every block would have a small nuclear fission reactor in a basement in the middle, or a solar panel producing enough to fill it's needs, as well as together also keep communally used equipment running.. But we can only progress as fast as is realistic!


should we start a decentralized energy thread; with DIY instructions too.

I have split this from the Nuclear Power -- for or against? -poll, to be a thread for discussion on the decentralisation of energy as a concept. A thread discussing DIY methods to try and produce energy sources of your own would propably fit better in the DIY forum.

[socialistfuture]

first two topics i can think of that need to be discused is human 'needs' and then onto economics and growth fetishism.

after that I want to go into resources, rights and resource depletion (i can imagine climate change goes into this one sometimes).

Green technologies are: wind, solar and power that comes from renewable resources. non renewable resources or 'dirty energy' comes from fossil fuels (ie coal, gas and oil). Nuclear is reliant on Uranium which is a finite resource but not included as a fossil fuel.

Also there is biofuel (tho these like 'clean' coal are not the quick fix they are made out to be - see www.biofuelwatch.org.uk).

Some of the main sectors are: Transport, Industry, Agricultural and Waste.

off the top of my head here are some coal figures:
India generates 70% of its power from coal, Poland 90%, the US 50%
In NZ we have 70% from renewables only one coal power plant and no nuclear :)

Sweden wishes to be independent of fossil fuels by 2020
The US and Australia have refused to sign Kyoto.

I recoment people read George Monbiot's website - Monbiot.com


As Global warming is happening and resources are running out energy generation and security will be an increasing problem. Energy decentralization is seen as a solution by many. I'll provide links to sites and blogs soon - as well as finding DIY windmill and solar instilation guides. (hmm on second thoughts i wont focus on DIY for here).

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:47 am
The only sustainable energy use is decentralized energy. Point of use wind, solar, possibly small scall hydro, etc. Centralized energy production is another clever way of keeping the current power system in place, which is also built on a hierarchical, centralized model.

Forget nukes and consider decentralized, bioregionally based green production.

I see where your coming from comrade. Still, I think it's better for communities blessed with resources to specialize in those resources. Like take a community in the middle of a desert, I don't know, something like the Australian outback. They get tons of sunshine, so why not have massive solar power generators that they can then trade the energy generated for goods with non-desert communities? Like timber from somewhere that doesn't get much sun, like Finland. This seems preferable to a situation where, for example, this desert community needs to screw with its local ecosystem by irrigating agriculture or the timber folk building hydropower stations with all their headaches, all in the name of "decentralization" and "localization."

I think specialization long term sustainability is only attainable in the long-run through considerable specialization and trade between communities.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+--> (DEPAVER)There actually is a safe reactor blueprint that is operating in France, but the United States would never copy anything the French do, especially with the Repugs in power.[/b]

What is this reactor design?


There is no good alternative to store something safely for 10,000 years.

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.


The price of uranium has increased by something like 1000% since the early 1990's. Not an exact figure, but close enough.

Please provide evidence that this figure comes from a more reputable source than your rectal cavity.

And in any case, uranium is more economical than oil, since you don't have to mine so much to get the same amount of energy.


Unfortunately, when you factor the number of new nukes required based on energy projections, there simply isn't enough money or enough qualified engineers to make this a viable alternative in the United States.

Firstly, the United States is not the world, secondly, nukes are not and were never intended to be a total solution, but one of a range of options. Renewables on their own will not be enough, as they each have limitations on their utility - wind and solar power require large amounts of space and favourable conditions, hydro-electric has a large impact on the environment, geothermal only works near crustal plate boundaries, etc etc.


The only sustainable energy use is decentralized energy. Point of use wind, solar, possibly small scall hydro, etc.

I'd like to try and see heavy industry powered in this manner. Or not, since renewables utilised in this manner won't be enough. If even a domestic household cannot be granted full independence from a power grid by sticking solar panels and windmills on its roof, what makes you think it will do for a steelworks?


Centralized energy production is another clever way of keeping the current power system in place, which is also built on a hierarchical, centralized model.

Maybe so, but it also grants energy workers a lot of power, because they are the ones actually operating it.

It's a double edged sword.


Forget nukes and consider decentralized, bioregionally based green production.

No. I consider nukes to be an option alongside renewables.

A decentralised energy grid would be useful in the event of catastrophe, but aside from that it is another symptom of the irrational dislike of all centralisation, no matter what form it takes. It's a form of paranoia.


socialistfuture
first two topics i can think of that need to be discused is human 'needs' and then onto economics and growth fetishism.


Despite your whining about "fetishism" the fact remains that the planet's population is increasing. Growth is occurring independently of capitalist economic theory, and that must be accounted for if everyone's living standards are to improve.

[socialistfuture]

so explain to me finite resources (including water and atmosphere) and endless growth.

either we find a way to limit growth of it will happen (economic or other forms of collapse)

have you read collapse by Jared Diamond? or the future eaters, or the last hours of ancient sunlight?

[socialistfuture]

there is enough wind power, hydro and sun light (for solar and passive solar heating) to provide for the world energy needs several time over. will put up sources soon. there is not enough uranium for a giant swith from coal to nuclear. let alone the oil needed for transport, and so on.

also centralised is the least safe for blackouts. i remember when aucklands power went out over one transmiter. let alone if a terrorist force of say CIA or specialist unit wanted a stategic blackout and power shortage. (let alone a terrorist attack on a nuclear poewplant near a main city.

so supply, energy security and reserves are some core considerations not wether YOU like nuclear as a personal choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

so explain to me finite resources (including water and atmosphere) and endless growth.

What?! :blink:


either we find a way to limit growth of it will happen (economic or other forms of collapse)

False dichotomy.


have you read collapse by Jared Diamond? or the future eaters, or the last hours of ancient sunlight?

No. But if those books are as good as you seem to think they are, then it should be easy for you to summarise their arguments for debates on this board rather than simply making others do your work for you.


there is enough wind power, hydro and sun light (for solar and passive solar heating) to provide for the world energy needs several time over. will put up sources soon. there is not enough uranium for a giant swith from coal to nuclear. let alone the oil needed for transport, and so on.

How many times does it need to be explained, nuclear fuels have a much better energy density than chemical-based fossil fuels, so you don't need to transport so much to get the same amount of energy.

I await your sources.


also centralised is the least safe for blackouts. i remember when aucklands power went out over one transmiter. let alone if a terrorist force of say CIA or specialist unit wanted a stategic blackout and power shortage.

That's exactly the sort of thing that back-up generators were invented for, you illiterate fool.


(let alone a terrorist attack on a nuclear poewplant near a main city.

That's why nuclear reactors are designed so that they can survive impacts from Boeing 747s. What the fuck makes you think that nuclear reactor engineers and designers are as retarded as you are?


so supply, energy security and reserves are some core considerations not wether YOU like nuclear as a personal choice.

I don't like nuclear reactors because they're cute and fuzzy, I like them because they're efficient, productive and have controllable wastes, or at least the capability to be so.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:25 am
there is enough wind power, hydro and sun light (for solar and passive solar heating) to provide for the world energy needs several time over.
O RLY? What evidence do you base this on, and how come you believe it's going to be a constant stream of energy despite being based on rather a rather unreliable set of sources (wind doesn't blow? Your windmills are fucked.).


will put up sources soon.

Please do so, with haste.


there is not enough uranium for a giant swith from coal to nuclear. let alone the oil needed for transport, and so on.

What the fuck is a "swith"? Even if we run out of urnanium there are plenty of other perfectly viable radioactive metals which would suffice.


also centralised is the least safe for blackouts. i remember when aucklands power went out over one transmiter. let alone if a terrorist force of say CIA or specialist unit wanted a stategic blackout and power shortage. (let alone a terrorist attack on a nuclear poewplant near a main city.

See what NoX said, in bold.


so supply, energy security and reserves are some core considerations not wether YOU like nuclear as a personal choice.

Now you're just making yourself look silly(er) - no one is arguing based on personal preference or taste so your crude strawman is just that.

[Janus]

I think that a more decentralized and diverse energy production system is needed as an alternative to the current reliance on a few enegy sources. However, I don't see why such a plan must only be limited to green energy as we still lack the capacity/ability or incentive to switch fully to such energy sources. Certain communities can and will benefit from the use of various alternative fuel sources but in the mean time, more effort and focus needs to be put into energy research and development something which is sorely lacking in countries such as the US.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

these are a few of the most reliable and predicatable ways to generate energy that i am familiar with, not too up on solar power although i hear that egypt has a new solar power plant, but here is some data concerning geothermal, wind, ocean thermal converstion, and tide power .....

nukes are not specifically necessary, there are other forms of energy including geothermal energy. heat mining has the potential to supply a significant amount of the country's electricity currently being generated by conventional fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear plants: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html


wind doesn't blow? Your windmills are fucked.

true, but the wind is always blowing somewhere ..... see here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wi...a/wind_maps.asp (http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp)

you can see that places such as south dakota have excellent wind capacity
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wi.../sd_50m_800.jpg (http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/images/windmaps/sd_50m_800.jpg)

according to estimates South Dakota alone has the potential to power half of the nation using wind power http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...7/05/14/sdwind/ (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/sdwind/)

there is also ocean thermal energy conversions (relatively new technology): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59MptHscxY...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59MptHscxY&mode=related&search=)

oh and tidal power, which is already competive with wind energy as well as having the edge in predicatability because it uses the gravity of the moon pulling water through turbines to generate energy (tides): http://www.epri.com/oceanenergy/streamenergy.html

bottom line: there is plenty of energy out there and once the infrastructure is developed there would be little need for nukes, gas, or coal, and i imagine that thier numbers would be dramatically reduced if not eliminated all togeather .....

however economics often sidesteps logic and capitalists loath to invest in new infrastructure especially when other forms of energy are still profitable ....

[socialistfuture]

wind will never run out, only problem is some areas are not real windy.

what would replace uranium in a nuclear power plant, would that mean the plant would need to be retrofited or altered? how much would that cost? provide examples.

again what do you do with nuclear waste and nuclear weapons? where is all the worlds nuclear waste currently stored?

jazzrat and noxion which countries do you live in? so we can talk about energy in those areas.

i would recomend you two and sentinel look into sweden's energy systems and also into denmark and Iceland (iceland being 100% renewable).
and if you want to read Collapse do it, dont ask me to explain the contents of a book to you, I am currently reading Guns. Germs and Steel by him. And the sacred balance by David Suzuki and one on mountiantop removal in Apalaccia.

the best website I know on climate issues and clean (green) energy is http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/ - go into the energy sections.
and also read monbiot.com and watch his interviews on youtube.

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/links.php and go to CLIMATE JUSTICE, CORPORATIONS, GREENWASH, ENERGY AND RENEWABLES, NUCLEAR POWER and PEAK OIL

also go to www.realclimate.org


watch this film if you get a chance -

The Ordinary Heroes of Afghanistan

Barefoot solar engineers bring light to remote, poor villages all over the world.

This short film documents the remarkable story of 10 Afghan men and women who travel to the Barefoot College of Tilonia in India to become “Barefoot” Solar Engineers.

Operating with the conviction that "experts" don't have all the answers and that technology can be demystified, The Barefoot College applies entrepreneurial creativity to the most complex development problems, yielding extraordinary results. The Barefoot College has already trained semi-literate “Barefoot” professionals to solar electrify over 200 remote communities across India and is now training Barefoot Solar Engineers in 9 developing countries around the world, including Afghanistan.

As documented in The Ordinary Heroes of Afghanistan, the Barefoot College organized five remote Afghani villages to select 10 representatives to become Barefoot Solar Engineers, brought them to India for six months of training, and purchased and transported solar panels to solar electrify the villages for five years, all for less than the cost of hiring one UN or World Bank Consultant in Kabul for one year.

The Ordinary Heroes of Afghanistan was produced by the Barefoot College and Roughcut Productions with support from a Skoll Foundation grant.
(DVD, 20 minutes, 2006)


i'm quite busy so I suggest you read first before mouthing off and saying how you love nuclear and growth no matter what. can get sum greenpeace reports and more specific info -

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Me Earlier
That's why nuclear reactors are designed so that they can survive impacts from Boeing 747s.

Whoops, it appears I'm wrong on this one. Actually they can withstand a 500mph impact from an F-4 Phantom fighter jet, not a 747.

YouTube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0MhOdkREQ)

Nevertheless, the plane is completely atomised.

[Sentinel]

So, what are you opinions on the Madsar Initiative? An eco-city for fifty thousand people to be built in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. It is not only meant to be totally self-sufficient when it comes to energy, but also produce zero waste. It will be powered with solar and wind energy. Link (http://www.benettontalk.com/2007/06/abu_dhabi_to_build_the_ultimat.html)


And now comes the time of stopping to rethink cities and starting to build what's been thought up. The world’s third largest oil reserve, Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, is racing to make a one-of-a-kind zero emissions city. Set for completion in 2009, the petroleum-rich desert city (6 million square meters and titled the Madsar Initiative) will be car free, powered by renewable energy and surrounded by wind and photovoltaic farms. Businesses will be given 100 percent foreign ownership, intellectual property protection, proximity to nearby manufactures, suppliers and markets and should thrive in a tax-free environment. Expected to house at least 50,000 people, the city will keep the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology and house scientific experts who will continue to research and develop. The Green City plan is a part of Abu Dhabi's April 2006 decision – to embrace renewable and sustainable energy technologies. "We need more than just ideas, thoughts and studies; we need ways to implement them effectively. Hopefully this initiative will trigger others in the region to follow suit", says Mohammed Raouf of the Gulf Research Centre.
Although it sounds next to impossible, I believe it can be done, and it’s true – it’s time to act. I’ve been thinking the same thing for the past year. Moves must be made and they must be large scale.

This is of course a very expensive project, and I doubt it could be possible as a global alternative for a long time, if ever. But they might be at least on the right track to local energy self-suffiency and sustainability. Perhaps the mankind of the future will live in selfproviding cities (urbanates?) mainly powered with either solar, wind, or nuclear fusion plants -- whatever makes most sense in the region. I can imagine that solar and wind make alot of sense in countries like the UAE, but I'm personally confident that fusion power when it emerges will be considered the ultimate energy source, as solar and wind have their natural limitations.

[socialistfuture]

where are all the resources coming from, what are the wages and working conditions of those building it, can any of the builders afford to live there?

i'd like more info