Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 09:41

ABC2019 wrote:so in reality it is 3 or 4 years of reserves.


No kidding ? That's what I just said and that's what these volumes represent ...

ABC2019 wrote:Solar is fine, but the vast majority is inaccessible and is immediately re-emitted in the form of infrared in space. Drawing this huge cube is quite misleading.


Anything ... a) much of what arrives on the ground can very well be captured for human use b) it is not immediately re-emitted into space otherwise there will be no life on earth .. .You were probably in the moon?

Have you ever heard of Desertec? As long as we are in comparative energetic geometry:

Image

solar-photovoltaic / Desertec-operate-energetics-of-deserts-t5338.html
https://www.econologie.com/telechargeme ... -desertec/

ABC2019 wrote:In short, the conclusion is that our civilization still has a century or so to live in this form, except for a miracle. And no it will not be the 2 ° C more that it will produce that will make it disappear, it will just disappear through the exhaustion of what makes it live.


That you believe !! Why do you think they invented the covid? : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping

Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Rajqawee » 10/03/21, 09:50

Christophe wrote:Finally stop taking you cabbage on the precision of the thing! Obviously it is approximate but it is not the purpose of this representation!

What is important are the orders of magnitude of the energy volumes.

The fossil reserves built up for millions of years is only a fraction of the solar energy received by land on Earth every year !


Good.

1) Giving graphical representations that make no sense bring nothing but confusion. Imagine someone who does not know anything looking at your graph "what ??! But why do we bother using fossils then?!? It is absolutely useless in fact!". In addition, this graph is not sourced. So we don't even know what we're talking about.

2) Orders of magnitude of energy volumes are not a relevant measure to decide anything, since they do not take into account multiple industrial constraints. It is like saying that there is infinite Hydrogen in water. Ah yes, but to recover it, it takes energy precisely ...

You cannot, moreover, present didactic sheets on the quality of the information, the fakenews, the scientific method, and on the other side present graphics - excuse me for the term - all rotten.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 09:51

Rajqawee wrote:Also, if I'm not too bad at speaking, I imagine the cubes represent the amount of potential energy? Basically, primary energy ...


And? Yes, these are primary energies available and consumed .... We compare carrots and carrots ... What does not appear are the evolution of reserves and consumption!

ABC and I said it: the Uranium cube corresponds well to 3 to 4 years in comparative volume ... assuming that 100% of humanity's energy is supplied by the U235.

Rajqawee wrote:Which is not very relevant to look at since it does not take into account the successive losses of yield, which are very different according to the sectors and the uses.


Bin no ... it's primary vs primary ...

Rajqawee wrote:It does not take into account the difficulties of extraction / obtaining (like the solar cube ...).


If we transformed less than 0.1% of the solar radiation received by the continents into energy useful for humanity, there would be more need for fossils, that's the message! Damn shit!

Rajqawee wrote:At this point, I propose to encompass the big cube of solar radiation with a huge cube that would eclipse everything else called "hydrogen + helium". It's up to you to find out what it is :D


Except it's still SF ... albeit in China ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 09:54

Rajqawee wrote:2) Orders of magnitude of energy volumes are not a relevant measure to decide anything, since they do not take into account multiple industrial constraints. It is like saying that there is infinite Hydrogen in water. Ah yes, but to recover it, it takes energy precisely ...


You're right, it's irrelevant and very incomplete ... we should make the same cube not with energy but with the harmful effects of fossils: deaths, war, carbon, pollution, destruction of biodiversity ...

Operation Barkane, which has been going on for years, do you think it's for the human rights of Africans? : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Rajqawee » 10/03/21, 09:56

Christophe wrote:
Rajqawee wrote:2) Orders of magnitude of energy volumes are not a relevant measure to decide anything, since they do not take into account multiple industrial constraints. It is like saying that there is infinite Hydrogen in water. Ah yes, but to recover it, it takes energy precisely ...


You're right, it's irrelevant and very incomplete ... we should make the same cube not with energy but with the harmful effects of fossils: deaths, war, carbon, pollution, destruction of biodiversity ...

Operation Barkane, which has been going on for years, do you think it's for the human rights of Africans? : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:


But no: I do not criticize, intrasically, the substance of the message that you would like to convey (or not yet. No, I'm kidding.). I criticize your choice of presentation.
0 x

Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 10:05

This is precisely the presentation that I found interesting! We will not agree on this subject I think!

But you are right on one point is that the representation in primary energy is misleading but only for solar! Since for other energies I imagine that these are ratios in TWh gross reserves and consumption ...

For solar, the conversion efficiency must be taken into account, unless the author has already done the conversion (this can be verified: I have always heard that the ratio was 40 on Earth and 000 on earth. ) but that would surprise me ... and I did not measure but it looks like we have a factor of 10 ...

Solar is also difficult to store, but that's another concern ...

So the 0.1% that I put forward is more like 0.5 to 0.7% ...

The conversion yields of other energies are already taken into account in the representation ... let's say that on average on a flame they are at 30% ... So if they were at 100% the blue cube would be 3 times smaller ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Rajqawee » 10/03/21, 10:11

Christophe wrote:This is precisely the presentation that I found interesting! We will not agree on this subject I think!

But you are right on one point is that the representation in primary energy is misleading but only for solar! Since for other energies I imagine that these are ratios in TWh gross reserves and consumption ...

For solar, the conversion efficiency must be taken into account, unless the author has already done the conversion (this can be verified: I have always heard that the ratio was 40 on Earth and 000 on earth. ) but that would surprise me ... and I did not measure but it looks like we have a factor of 10 ...

Solar is also difficult to store, but that's another concern ...

So the 0.1% that I put forward is more like 0.5 to 0.7% ...

The conversion yields of other energies are already taken into account in the representation ... let's say that on average on a flame they are at 30% ... So if they were at 100% the blue cube would be 3 times smaller ...


So that's what I'm saying. You have a representation of which - at least - the solar cube is deceptively huge.
The presentation would be interesting if it made it possible to directly apprehend the right information (that's what it is supposed to be used for.)
In the end, you present us a graph which requires to specify in addition:
-that we are talking about raw TwH
-that the solar cube is not as big
-that it does not take various constraints, such as storage.

Suddenly: what is this representation for, as it is?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 10:49

Not that big? If so if, since these are EPs ... what would change is the BLUE cube because it is this which intrinsically contains the notion of returns!

If we went to 100% solar, the blue cube would grow a little ... that's all!

How much is the average solar yield? 20%

The average flame and nuclear efficiency is how much? 30%...

No 30% is exaggerated if we take into account the overall yields (prospecting, extraction, transport, refining, distribution ...) ... so 25%?

So 20% vs 25%? 125% ... Here is the possible volume correction to be made to the BLUE cube ...

According Transportation-electric / electric-car-and-heat-balance-well-a-la-wheel-t10080.html we have a 22% overall return on oil ...

Also and it is not highlighted enough ... We are talking about annual VS reserves of millions of years ... it is important! No ?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1007

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by ABC2019 » 10/03/21, 13:13

Christophe wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:so in reality it is 3 or 4 years of reserves.


No kidding ? That's what I just said and that's what these volumes represent ...

I didn't say it was wrong ...
Anything ... a) much of what arrives on the ground can very well be captured for human use b) it is not immediately re-emitted into space otherwise there will be no life on earth .. .You were probably in the moon?

most of it is not all; life recovers a small part, but the essential is immediately sent back into space.

Have you ever heard of Desertec? As long as we are in comparative energetic geometry:

yes, but it plays on a fraction enormously smaller than the initial cube, and even very small compared to the annual world consumption, this is why I say that the size of the cube is misleading.

The earth would be flat and infinite, and humanity would live in a small region of finite size, the “solar radiation set” cube would be virtually infinite, that's not what would help humanity use it. We only have access to a very small portion of this stream anyway, even with Desertec.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 72782
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8151

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Christophe » 10/03/21, 13:19

Agree with the very small part ... but we don't need more !!! So where is the problem? : Cheesy:

Only by making a very hypothetical Dyson sphere that we manage to capture 100% of the energy of a star (and not what arrives on a planet but what radiates from the star) ...

Hold this subject should interest you: science-and-technology / scale-of-kardashev-quantity-of-energy-of-a-civilization-t8166.html
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 44 guests