Energy production

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Hi! I would like to share a post back from Micronation.org!

I have talked before about green industry. I have very nice ambitions, I want Trebia's economy to be as more independent as possible, producing our own appliances, electronic software, clothing, vehicles and prime materials to produce them while having a traditionalist culture, so it would be a mix of a classical utopia with a low population density mixed up with modern appliances and devices.

Because of our love of traditional lifestyle, we want as less environmental issues as possible (and in my auto-philosophy, balance with nature is compulsory for a true traditional lifestyle, which leads to happiness).

Examples on what I seek to avoid include air and water pollution, global warming, fossil fuel depletion and other types of pollution and disaster.

Of course it's impossible to have a 100% green industry, because industrial processes leave behind CO2 and energy, mainly thermal energy, which both contribute to global warming.

But, in some way, it could be possible to increase the efficiency of motors or other machines working in factories. A motor or engine basically is a machine who converts any "fuel energy" (thermal, hydraulic, electric...) into mechanical energy for the industrial processes. Efficiency is the ratio between the energy output and input of a machine. This graph explains pretty well how efficiency works. Efficiency is at the 100% when there is no energy loss, and the output is the same as the input. Of course making a 100% efficient machine is impossible, but this efficiency might be increased somehow.

That is regarding energy conversion efficiency. Now, another interesting topic is, how to power these machines. I want to use electric energy for the processes that can use it instead of coal or oil. (In fact, I want an economy as less dependent of oil as possible, unless I can synthetically produce it, in which case I hope the gringos don't invade).

My methods for energy production have been quoted a lot, but just as a review, I've considered:

SPOILER: Click to show

1. Solar energy
2. Wind energy
3. Pee-power! (Aka: urine generators). I discovered the link to this one thanks to King Shamus, so thank you!
4. Hydraulic energy
5. Nuclear energy could be produced withing a thick concrete bunker in case of meltdown. I've considered using thorium as fuel instead of uranium

A bit like oil, I want to abstain from using coal as much as possible, but I may employ it for metal smelting and working. I may use coal to smelt massive amounts of iron ore, temper it till' top quality, and sell it to blacksmith to shape them into useful tools, which in turn they sell to workers, agricultural and mining companies, or other artisans like carpenters, which may need tools to produce their wares.

Recycling will be very crucial in the Trebian economy. Landfills will be illegal, everything will be recycled somehow. Placing trash in landfills lead to pollution of soil and the aquifer, which is an important underground reserve of water. (Water wells are dug till' such aquifer). Therefore we will not permit landfills in Trebia. We are recycling metals, plastics, paper and glass.

This image shows how landfills pollute groundwater, the aquifer, and the soil itself.

Organic waste may be turned into pig feeds, or fertilizer, and electronic waste may be exported, but I look forward to recycle it locally if possible.

Those are my ideas so far for a greener industry. For better improvement, I'm studying pollution itself. There are 5 types of pollution.

SPOILER: Click to show

1. Chemical: this one is terrible. For example, plastic is not natural. It is a synthetic material, and it pollutes the soil, lasting a lot of time to dissolve, and leaving carcinogens behind.
2. Optical: this one is caused by glass, metal and paper. Glass eventually shatters and erodes, turning back into sand. Metal oxidates, eventually becomes ore again, and paper turns into cellulose. They don't produce carcinogens, unlike plastic, therefore, there is no chemical pollution involved. It is optical pollution because you see the scum, the pile of rubbish, so it's still a problem, and also, I don't think it's a good idea to step on a broken glass bottle.
3. Thermal: Produced by motors, foundries, and anything that produces heat. It is basically excess heat. I'm not really worried about this one because energy tends to spread, so eventually heat escapes our planet, you just need to regulate heat emissions, so heat escape is higher than heat production. However, the property of energy to spread has led to the very worrying heat death of the Universe.
4. Luminous: is basically excess light. Excess light reduces vision, and can easily be prevented, so I'm not worried. Just don't use too much lights at night. Just take the minimum (or a bit more if you want) to make streets safe, and to move around your home at night.
5. Sonic: Pollution is the excess of sound. Just lower the music in your earplugs or you might go deaf. Like luminous pollution, sonic pollution is very easy to prevent, it just requires some common sense.

Well I hope you liked my post, feel free to share your ideas!

This post is very similar to the one made in Micronation.org but I upgraded it a bit, in order to share it here. What do you think?

[Sir Benedict]

As always, I'm impressed with the amount of thought you've put into your work. In theory, I agree with you that all societies should embrace the environment and green production processes as much as possible. However, when considering several different courses of action, it is important to carefully weigh the potential benefits with the costs. I think it would be very nice to live in a society without landfills, coal power plants and pollution; the only caveat is that such a society would be very expensive to support.

Let's take energy production. Wind, solar and hydroelectric power have the potential to be relatively cheap, but each have drawbacks. For example, windmills must be made in a place that is very windy regularly in order to be efficient; solar panels take up a huge amount of space (putting panels on every home and place of business would take care of this, but I doubt everyone would be able to afford the investment); one needs a large river and space for a reservoir in order to set up a hydroelectric plant. Also, all of these sources of energy are variable, meaning that the electricity produced will be sporadic. If the sun stops shining, the river stops flowing, or the wind stops blowing, you'd be in bad shape. Coal, on the other hand, is only slightly more expensive than other methods of energy production and the amount of electricity produced is fixed. If you're willing to accept the marginal levels of pollution, coal can provide the cheap and reliable electricity any society needs. Nuclear power, while expensive, is another good option. Diversification of energy sources would provide all of the benefits of each and would greatly increase the reliability of electric power.

Now on to oil. While electric cars have improved drastically recently, the cheapest and most efficient method of private transportation continues to be petroleum fueled. In the modern world, unless you want everyone to have to use public transportation, gasoline is a must. Being someone who appreciates the freedom and utility a car can provide, I think that oil is a wonderful resource that should continue to be used until a more efficient substitute is developed.

Finally, on to recycling. Quite frankly, the recycling craze that governments and enviro-nazis are promoting is little more than a scam. While it is true that all products have an associated economic and environmental cost, the question is: does recycling actually lower these costs? Not really. It takes far less money, effort, and energy to produce new goods than to try to save old ones. That's why private businesses tend to make new products solely using new materials. The only reason governments provide recycling programs today is because it's not a business and therefore doesn't care about how much its activities actually cost. It's a nice dream to think that we can recycle everything, but that's all it is: a dream. The fact is that not everything can be recycled. Of what can be, the economic and social cost is enormous. When you consider the essential service they provide, landfills don't really take up all that much space, and modern developments allow them to pollute very little. Some landfills even use the heat coming off from decomposing trash to generate electricity. There may be a day when resources are so scarce that recycling becomes worth it, but today is certainly not that day.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that being green is good, but how green we are must be balanced with the economic and social costs. While there are certainly some things we can do to protect the environment, overall the environmental costs of human activity are very low when compared to the benefits such activity provides for mankind.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Jun 3, 2015 16:21:04 GMT Sir Benedict said:

As always, I'm impressed with the amount of thought you've put into your work. In theory, I agree with you that all societies should embrace the environment and green production processes as much as possible. However, when considering several different courses of action, it is important to carefully weigh the potential benefits with the costs. I think it would be very nice to live in a society without landfills, coal power plants and pollution; the only caveat is that such a society would be very expensive to support.

Thank you, I like to invest time on this, trying out most things. Now, I never truly said I would have a society without pollution. Actually, that's impossible. A fart pollutes. What I meant is that I would like CO₂ (Carbon dioxide) and CH₄ (Methane) emissions as low as possible. Also, I even want to try making artificial photosynthesis machines somehow, and place them near coal burning sources to control Carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

Let's take energy production. Wind, solar and hydroelectric power have the potential to be relatively cheap, but each have drawbacks. For example, windmills must be made in a place that is very windy regularly in order to be efficient; solar panels take up a huge amount of space (putting panels on every home and place of business would take care of this, but I doubt everyone would be able to afford the investment); one needs a large river and space for a reservoir in order to set up a hydroelectric plant. Also, all of these sources of energy are variable, meaning that the electricity produced will be sporadic. If the sun stops shining, the river stops flowing, or the wind stops blowing, you'd be in bad shape. Coal, on the other hand, is only slightly more expensive than other methods of energy production and the amount of electricity produced is fixed. If you're willing to accept the marginal levels of pollution, coal can provide the cheap and reliable electricity any society needs. Nuclear power, while expensive, is another good option. Diversification of energy sources would provide all of the benefits of each and would greatly increase the reliability of electric power.

1. Yes, solar and wind energy have the inconvenient of not being available all the time. Sun doesn't shine all day and wind doesn't blow every time either. But I've considered these "supplementary methods" of producing energy. They are not a priority, but they still help.
   
2. Hydroelectric energy may be Trebia's advantage, because our claims so far are full of rivers. I've not been there yet, so I can't confirm if said rivers have strong currents. And I don't really know in which way the fluvial currents would stop flowing, other than the river drying out, and because it doesn't snow in the Tropic, so it shouldn't freeze either.
   
3. Recently, I've thought on nuclear energy as an alternative. It's really dangerous, and Trebia would be doomed if a meltdown happened. It could even damage Panamanian territory, leading me and my people to real trouble. However, I've planned to research on Thorium reactors, which are apparently safer than Uranium reactors, and are beginning to be used around the world. They rely on the element Thorium, hence the name. I've already found out that unlike Uranium, it isn't possible to form atomic bombs with Thorium. I need to keep researching about it, and someday, I'll hire a specialist nuclear physician to assist me.
4. I've not considered erasing coal energy, however. I just want to minimize it as much as possible, to reduce CO₂ emissions. I might burn Coal energy only if necessary. Another problem with coal is that as a mineral source, it isn't renewable. As a plant source, enough charcoal requires lots of wood, and that's in part what took down most of Britain's forests in the Industrial revolution. I wouldn't like the Trebian forests to meet a similar fate.
   

Now on to oil. While electric cars have improved drastically recently, the cheapest and most efficient method of private transportation continues to be petroleum fueled. In the modern world, unless you want everyone to have to use public transportation, gasoline is a must. Being someone who appreciates the freedom and utility a car can provide, I think that oil is a wonderful resource that should continue to be used until a more efficient substitute is developed.

Aye, I understand. Despite electric cars exist already, oil fueled cars exist. But, take this in mind, Trebia's territory claims are so small that our capital city will be 2 kilometers long from side to side. If you have strong legs you can walk off that distance in 30 minutes. And that is the distance between the west and east borders of the city. In a normal life you could have a 10 minute long walk to work, so cars would mostly be used to go from town to town, and we may have horses to do that work for we are very traditional. Even so, take in mind I said I would like an economy "as less dependent on oil as possible", not an oil less economy.

Finally, on to recycling. Quite frankly, the recycling craze that governments and enviro-nazis are promoting is little more than a scam. While it is true that all products have an associated economic and environmental cost, the question is: does recycling actually lower these costs? Not really. It takes far less money, effort, and energy to produce new goods than to try to save old ones. That's why private businesses tend to make new products solely using new materials. The only reason governments provide recycling programs today is because it's not a business and therefore doesn't care about how much its activities actually cost. It's a nice dream to think that we can recycle everything, but that's all it is: a dream. The fact is that not everything can be recycled. Of what can be, the economic and social cost is enormous. When you consider the essential service they provide, landfills don't really take up all that much space, and modern developments allow them to pollute very little. Some landfills even use the heat coming off from decomposing trash to generate electricity. There may be a day when resources are so scarce that recycling becomes worth it, but today is certainly not that day.

Recycling lowers the cost of using new products most of the times.

1. As I stated before, glass takes less energy to melt than the raw silica sand. So you use less fuel to melt already used glass than raw sand, that is obviously cheaper.
   
2. Long before recycling was invented, blacksmiths were the first recyclers. Metal scraps can easily be melted and used again and again. Even easier than raw ore, because raw ore comes with impurities. For example, this beautiful mineral, Malachite, is a Copper Carbonate: Cu₂CO₃(OH)₂ while old Copper might just be an oxide: Cu₂O, CuO or Cu₂O₃ or might be well preserved (like naturally found native copper, or artificial non-rusted copper ware) which is simply Cu. Also, the process of turning Iron ore (Magnetite, Hematite or Limonite) into steel costs a morbid amount of coal, and it's melted in Blast furnaces, which works with other metal ores as well. But, already melted steel has a lower melting point than the iron ores, and doesn't need to be melted, just heated red hot to be hammered and reshaped again.
   
3. I've not researched much on paper and plastic, but, the thing is, they're recyclable too. Are they easy to remake? I'm not sure, I've not researched on them. But, paper is just cellulose, which by the way it's C₆H₁₀O₅ , an organic, biodegradable and non-pollutant substance. It could fertilize the soil, for more trees to grow on them, which will be chopped, and the cycle goes on.
4. Organic waste could easily be used to feed livestock. This company has managed to do so. They cook food waste so that it becomes a powder rich in carbohydrates and protein. And it doesn't seem expensive, compared to the profits they made. As well, organic waste could be easily turned into compost.
5. The recycling of electronic waste requires more regulations, because electronic devices employ materials such as lead, cadmium, beryllium and lithium, which are unsafe to manipulate with bare hands. In addition, heavy metals leaked through landfills could pollute the subsoil. Once again, I'll make sure to seek specialized workers before recycling my own electronic waste.

So, recycling isn't as difficult as you may think. There are other non recyclable materials, true, but at least some of the few recyclable should be recycled, because it is easier to recycle than to get new raw material. Also, don't you think we are already exhausting some of our resources?

I've roughly researched on my methods, and frankly, it doesn't look that expensive. Note that I won't try to make a 100% green society, because that is impossible. Instead, I look to reduce pollutant emissions as much as possible.