Anybody know anything about Solar or Geothermal energy?

Weird Harold wrote:How quickly will they move to Solar Power Generation once the Proscriptions are voided?

The same questions apply to Geothermal.

I would suspect the answer to the first question is never, as your question implies that solar is a "natural" progression of energy source after fossil fuels. By second implication you assume human energy consumption has at any point in history gone from more dense energy sources (fossil fuels) to less dense source (solar/wind/biofuel/etc). In fact the opposite is true, throughout our history we have progressively been harnessing more and more energy dense sources. At first just our own muscle power, then animal muscle power, then wind/water, then coal, then oil, then nuclear, and in the future we're talking about fusion and antimatter. Each step is about the energy density of the material.

As for geothermal a lot of the same conditions apply, hot water is in fact less energy dense than coal (1 ton of coal has a lot more potential chemical energy than 1 ton of water at 100C). geothermal is also extremely location limited, and has massive issues with corrosion in the piping from sulfur compounds. According to http://geo-energy.org/events/2014%20Ann ... 0Final.pdf there are about 12 GW of installed geothermal capacity globally right now (about 4.4 GW in the US). For perspective the 600 coal power plants in the US can generate 314 GW. There are two orders of magnitude gap between geothermal and coal power production.

Knowing the author and his stated thoughts on nuclear power, I imagine once the proscriptions are lifted you'll see Owl giving some detailed instructions on some pretty advanced coal power plants, with an eye towards graduating as soon as possible to advanced nuclear designs.

Aegis99 wrote:I would suspect the answer to the first question is never, as your question implies that solar is a "natural" progression of energy source after fossil fuels.

Actually, I expect Safehold to leap over internal comustion engines to electrics with Hydro, Wind, Solar, and geothermal augmenting coal-fired steam-turbine generation -- followed by nuclear steam turbine generators. There are better (and recyclable) uses for fossil fuels than burning them.

Weird Harold wrote:

Aegis99 wrote:I would suspect the answer to the first question is never, as your question implies that solar is a "natural" progression of energy source after fossil fuels.

Actually, I expect Safehold to leap over internal comustion engines to electrics with Hydro, Wind, Solar, and geothermal augmenting coal-fired steam-turbine generation -- followed by nuclear steam turbine generators. There are better (and recyclable) uses for fossil fuels than burning them.

Also, Safehold can cheat by having Owl tell them what the 24th century recipe for solar cells is. They won't necessarily have to build up the ultrapure amorphous silicon infrastructure first.

Is there a reference to heated baths on one of the palaces? Like hot springs heared. Or I might be thinking of the wrong story.

Graydon wrote:Also, Safehold can cheat by having Owl tell them what the 24th century recipe for solar cells is. They won't necessarily have to build up the ultrapure amorphous silicon infrastructure first.

There's also 24th Century designs for orbital collectors and beamed power. Although, Merlin has been very selective about which technologies are being "helped" with complete plans for Terran Federation tech; he wants to stimulate innovation rather than letting Safehold rely on "cheating" to advance.

For perspective the 600 coal power plants in the US can generate 314 GW.

314 GW is a solar power plant taking up a 15-mile-square or so. Doesn't need to be photoelectric either - steam power works just fine. A 100-mile-square worth of solar plant instead is 10 TW, covering the current energy requirements of the entire planet.
Energy density of fuel can get higher in that you could build smaller power plants but you could never get fossil fuel production that high in that small a space simply because fossil fuel reserves are spread all over the world, and usually not in the places you want.



If the sheer amount of work or infrastructure currently put into fossil fuels were ever put into any renewable energy source, fossil fuel would become history. For perspective, Great Britain put half a million to a million workers for half a century into coal development. Put the same in solar power and see what happens.

Aegis99 wrote:Knowing the author and his stated thoughts on nuclear power, I imagine once the proscriptions are lifted you'll see Owl giving some detailed instructions on some pretty advanced coal power plants, with an eye towards graduating as soon as possible to advanced nuclear designs.

Again, I'd expect a fairly quick jump over fission technology to fusion, but with the emphasis on avoiding or minimizing the worst pollution offenders along the way.

I would hope that the 24th century Terran Federation had realized that most of the billions of tons of fossil fuel mined/pumped by the start of the 21st century was burned -- totally and unrecoverably destroyed -- and moved on to renewable, sustainable energy sources; even if they are less energy-dense than burning a finite resource.

Aegis99 wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:How quickly will they move to Solar Power Generation once the Proscriptions are voided?

The same questions apply to Geothermal.

I would suspect the answer to the first question is never, as your question implies that solar is a "natural" progression of energy source after fossil fuels. By second implication you assume human energy consumption has at any point in history gone from more dense energy sources (fossil fuels) to less dense source (solar/wind/biofuel/etc). In fact the opposite is true, throughout our history we have progressively been harnessing more and more energy dense sources. At first just our own muscle power, then animal muscle power, then wind/water, then coal, then oil, then nuclear, and in the future we're talking about fusion and antimatter. Each step is about the energy density of the material.

As for geothermal a lot of the same conditions apply, hot water is in fact less energy dense than coal (1 ton of coal has a lot more potential chemical energy than 1 ton of water at 100C). geothermal is also extremely location limited, and has massive issues with corrosion in the piping from sulfur compounds. According to http://geo-energy.org/events/2014%20Ann ... 0Final.pdf there are about 12 GW of installed geothermal capacity globally right now (about 4.4 GW in the US). For perspective the 600 coal power plants in the US can generate 314 GW. There are two orders of magnitude gap between geothermal and coal power production.

Knowing the author and his stated thoughts on nuclear power, I imagine once the proscriptions are lifted you'll see Owl giving some detailed instructions on some pretty advanced coal power plants, with an eye towards graduating as soon as possible to advanced nuclear designs.

The major difference between coal and geothermal is that you don't get to use the coal twice. Using ammonia / water mixes lowers the useful rock temperature to 60C to drive a steam engine.
You just need a good drilling rig to reach hot and thermally conductive rock and you can have a hot water on tap - useful if their is snow on the ground but with a significant upfront investment in drilling a couple of hundred yard deep hole and line it with a heat exchanger (or frack it and feed to an adjacent hole). Depends on your value of a hot bath and your long term view of your home as to whether it it is worthwhile.

Where geothermal is concerned, oil drilling already can reach several miles deep, and the deepest experimental boreholes are 8 miles deep.


You don't need geologically active regions to tap geothermal power with that kind of drilling depth.

Belial666 wrote:Where geothermal is concerned, oil drilling already can reach several miles deep, and the deepest experimental boreholes are 8 miles deep.


You don't need geologically active regions to tap geothermal power with that kind of drilling depth.

Except...

Safehold doesn't currently have any oil drilling at any depth. They might have water drilling rigs capable of a few hundred feet of relatively easy drilling. I don't think boreholes miles deep are on the horizon yet.