Hi Ray, John, ftth, and Frank...
Future scenarios are ugly. It's a question of tradeoffs, and the beauty contest will probably be won by Miss Congeniality.
grida.no
"Finally, the WBCSD study included a possible fuel mix for the world in 2050 in which the world's power supply is doubled and emits 9 gigatons of carbon per year. In that scenario, the world will need the equivalent of 3000 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power plants; 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired plants; 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired plants with carbon capture; 1.5 million 5 megawatt windmills; 2500 nuclear power stations; 2000 hydropower stations; 65 exajoules of solar power; 1 billion high fossil fueled vehicles and 1 billion biofueled vehicles; 50 exajoules of biofueled heating and cooling and 250 exajoules of fossil fueled heating and cooling. An exajoule is equivalent to approximately 23.5 million metric tons of oil.
Currently, humanity is fueled by 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plants, 400 1 gigawatt oil-fired plants, 250 gas-fired plants, 350 nuclear power stations, 500 gigawatts of hydropower, 750 million fossil fueled vehicles, 130 exajoules for heating and cooling, 50 exajoules from the burning of traditional biomass.
Doing the math, in order to double the world's energy supplies over the next 50 years, the world will need to build, among other things, the equivalent of 2750 new 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power stations, 1000 new coal-fired 1 gigawatt power plants with carbon capture, 1.5 million windmills deployed over a bit less than 300,000 square miles, 2150 new nuclear plants, 1500 new 1 gigawatt hydropower stations, not to mention new solar and biofuel technologies."
techcentralstation.com
At BC Transit, I was distantly involved with evaluation of Ballard Power's fuel-cell buses, which company was the parent of pilot project fuel-cell cars by Mercedes.
WRT to ftth's comment about the dangers of hydrogen transport, yes, it's dangerous. A few months back, a hydrogen tanker at the local Ballard plant suddenly began emitting an almost-invisible flame - fortunately, with no explosion or real damage. However, the meter blew, on neighbourhood anxiety levels...
Without going into detail, I still prefer the idea of swapping pre-filled modular "tanks" when refuelling. It appears to be the safest way. Yodelling "Fill 'er up!" to some yahoo at the local pump might be a ticket to paradise.
Hydrogen infrastructure will have to be developed, and made safe. There won't be any choice.
Many problems remain unsolved... electrified mass transit will make a return, but you'll need a long extension cord for aircraft ;)
We can all evaluate figures in the various scenarios differently, but there's only conclusion: we will experience a MASSIVE need for new power generation.
The good news is the bad news: mankind is now on the downhill side of poisoning the planet with fossil fuel, and carbon waste.
Back in November '73 in the first oil embargo, we watched the UK start rationing gas, and shutting down TV stations at 1030, to save power. In the US, Nixon rolled speed limits back to the "double nickel" and truck drivers rioted. In Germany, autobahns were deserted, and in New York, there were fistfights at gas stations with long lineups.
If we don't get a handle on power generation, we'll see people freezing to death, and starving to death - starting with the poorest.
I can't prove it, but I think nuclear power on a model like the one proposed by Farrington Daniels, together with hydrogen power is the least unattractive option.
We may make light of it, but our children will be faced with the consequences of decisions being made now. I don't eny them.
It's about time we started electing people who have the foresight and guts to act on a clear vision of the future. We used to have them once. More important, we used to vote for them.
Maybe we've just got too damned fat, too indulgent in dreamy agendas, to plan (and prepare) for what's coming.
Jim |
