Orders of Magnitude
Scales of Energy & Existence
Mapping Multidimensional Modality
The interconnection of our neuronal structures continuously construct the scope and scale of our existence. The continuous never ending endeavor of exploration and discovery at every layer and level makes for an inexhaustibly interesting infinitude.
As above, so below. Nuclei have properties similar planets and stars. Sound waves are analogous to light waves. The growth rates of cells and the growth of cities grow according to the same mathematical formula at different physical scales. Eternity is a Fractal Loop looking the same when zoomed in and zoomed out.
The point at which the simultaneity of these scales become useful is when they enable us to intentionally direct action at each succeeding moment of our personal scale. The moment to moment personal scale is the one which most impacts every other layer and level’s interpretation and functions.
Orders of Magnitude describe relative scale in factors of ten.
One order of magnitude turns 1 to 10, or from 10 to 100, and 100 to 1000, and so on. Each step representing a tenfold multiplication is an order of magnitude. Each time we add a zero, that’s one order of magnitude.
This system provides a method of understanding the scale of differences. Take the minuscule world of atoms (measured in nanometers 10^-9[0.0000000001]) or the vast expanses of spacetime (measured in light-years ~10^16[10,000,000,000,000,000]). A difference of 25 orders of magnitude between them.
Consider the magnitude of capital: 1$ is 3 orders from 1000$
1000$ is 3 orders from 1 Million
1000$ is 9 orders from 1 Trillion
By using orders of magnitude, large and small scales can be more easily traversed, easier to conceptualize, and communicate the scale of changes or measurable comparisons in the world around us.
Applying the Magnitude of Scale to Energy
Due to the vast disparity between the density of different sources of energy, it helps to have an abstracted scale(Log Scale[Orders of Magnitude]). We apply the abstracted concept: orders of magnitude to help us measure the differences in potential available from any particular source. The efficiency and utility of each source varying depending upon the specific application and form of energy being utilized.
Let’s explore the energy densities of just a few different types of energy sources:
Batteries (NiMH, Lead Acid, Li-ion, Fuel Cell),
Carbon fuels (Wood, Coal, Gasoline, Natural Gas), and
Nuclear energy sources (Radioactive Decay, Fission, Fusion),
comparing them in terms of orders of magnitude to illustrate the vast differences in their energy density.
See Wikipedia on Energy Density for More Sources and Forms
Electrical Potential: Photo/Chemical Energy Storage Batteries operate by storing chemical energy and converting it into electrical energy.
Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries have an energy density of about 60-120 Wh/kg, while
Lead Acid batteries are lower, around 30-50 Wh/kg.
Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) batteries, commonly used in electronic devices and electric vehicles, offer a higher energy density of around 100-265 Wh/kg.
Fuel cells, though technically not batteries, generate direct current electricity through electrochemical reactions. Hydrogen fuel cells reaching up to 1,000 Wh/kg.
Solar panels, optimally capture between 100-250watts/Meter^2 or ~15 watts/kg
Despite these variations, all these battery types are several orders of magnitude lower in energy density compared to carbon fuels and nuclear energy.
Carbon Fuels: Combustion and Chemical Reactions Carbon fuels store energy in chemical bonds and release it thermally through combustion.
Wood, one of the earliest fuel sources, has an energy density of about 16.2 MJ/kg (approximately 4,500 Wh/kg).
Coal, a more energy-dense fossil fuel, varies in density but can reach up to 24 MJ/kg (about 6,667 Wh/kg).
Gasoline, widely used in transportation, has a higher energy density, roughly 12,000 Wh/kg.
Natural Gas, primarily methane, stands at about 13,000 Wh/kg.
These carbon-based fuels represent up to two orders of magnitude increase in energy density, a significant jump from DC batteries.
Nuclear Energy: Harnessing Atomic Power Nuclear energy sources exhibit energy densities that are orders of magnitude greater than chemical energy sources.
Radioactive decay, like in carbon-14 diamond batteries, a relatively low-yield nuclear reaction, still surpass the energy density of chemical reactions at 700 MJ/kg (~194,444Wh/kg) by A LOT.
Note that although they have a high energy density, they have a low power density(the instantaneous power they produce). A small amount of energy produced over a very long period of time.
RTG like in the Mars Perseverance and Curiosity Rovers will, over its half-life would release a total of about 470,000 joules(130,555Wh/kg) of energy, per 1 gram of Pu-238.
Nuclear fission, primarily from the splitting of heavy atomic nuclei like uranium 235, used in current nuclear power plants, have an energy density around 24,000,000 Wh/kg, a minimum of 3 orders of magnitude greater than carbon fuel, and 6 orders greater than batteries.
The Fusion of tritium deuterium, is the most dense source(Except Anti-Matter) by scale and powers the sun, having moderately increased energy density compare to fission, though it is not easily harnessed for practical use. These nuclear processes are millions of times more energy-dense than batteries.
Magnitude Matters
The comparison across these energy sources reveals striking differences in energy density, emphasizing the vast potential of nuclear energy and the comparative limitations of batteries and carbon fuels. While batteries, particularly Li-ion and fuel cells, are evolving and have massively beneficial applications in modern technology, their energy densities are considerably lower than carbon fuels and nuclear technologies.
Carbon fuels, with their higher energy densities, should continue to be primary energy sources until their environmental costs can be targeted and reduced, particularly by nuclear energy, with its unparalleled energy density. Simultaneously offering immense power generation capabilities and requiring equally careful management due to the increase in energy available. Fire can burn, or it can save lives, depending upon how it’s wielded.
Understanding the orders of magnitude difference between different energy sources and formats allows us to make more informed decisions about which energy sources should be pursued and implemented technologically for the greatest possible prosperity of humanity, life, and earth holistically.
Scaling Energy Sources: A Quest for Efficient Electrical Base-load Power Generation
Overcoming the challenges of energy conversion and generation at scale matters a lot more than zombie media would have you believe. The reality of the global energy landscape is amplified by the relentless quest to meet the new burgeoning increases in electrical energy needs for growing nation’s needs.
The journey of how we got here, and where we are going is fascinating and deserves its own article. The optimistic expansion of the Industrial age involved a meticulous evaluation of every energy source science can measure, starting from carbon fuel-based heating, semi-conductor photovoltaics, to atomic fission and fusion technologies.
Direct vs. Mechanical Energy Capture: A Crucial Distinction
Energy capture methods play a pivotal role in this quest. Direct energy capture, exemplified by solar cells, magnetostatic high drives, and thermoelectric effects, contrast sharply with mechanical capture like engines spinning generators.
The former sources are lauded for their ability to directly convert energy directly to electricity. Yet, industry is powered by engines, their energy density being key to their scalability and efficacy as effective power sources in their respective applications.
It is unreasonably more difficult to use an energy source several orders of magnitude less dense to do the same amount of work as the other. Why would anyone do 10 times more work for the same result? A more efficient path exists, water flows downhill... Even if the downsides reduced the benefits, they’d have to outweigh the benefits to tip the scale.
Nuclear Energy: The Density Advantage
The public debate often focuses around solar and wind power. While solar energy is popular and conceptually appealing, its lower energy density makes it substantially less feasible for fulfilling industrial power needs at scale. In contrast, nuclear energy, with its significantly higher energy density, emerges as the obvious choice for adoption.
This distinction becomes even more pronounced when considering the scalability of different reactor sizes, from kilowatts to gigawatts. At perfect efficiency there is 1 kilowatt hour of solar energy available per square meter of surface area per hour the sun shines equaling much less than 1$ of electrical power a day. By contrast, a 1 inch cube of thorium or uranium metal contains a lifetime supply of energy, in the palm of your hand.
Exploring Scalability through Reactor Sizing
The Pursuit of Scale in Energy Production
The scalability of electrical power can be illustrated by hypothesizing reactors(or any power plants) of varying capacities – from
A one hundred watts, like the RTG powering the perseverance and curiosity mars rovers,
a one kilowatt design like NASA’s Kilopower,
A one megawatt design in a small modular reactor
all the way to one gigawatt like many of todays large reactor plants.
The United States used 4,050 TWh(Terra-watt hours) of electrical power in 2022. China used 8,637 TWh in 2022.
As of 2022, the net summer capacity of the electric power sector in the United States was estimated at around 1.1 terawatts. Let’s try calculating the number of power plant units would be needed to achieve a terawatt of output and the timeframe for the units production. Such analyses can highlight the optimal reactor size; balancing rate of production with power output for maximum base load contribution to the grid.
Let’s calculate the number of nuclear reactor units of various capacities needed to achieve a terawatt (TW) of output, and to consider the timeframe for their production. We’ll need to perform some calculations, let's break it down by reactor size:
100-Watt Reactors: These are small-scale reactors like the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) used in space missions. To achieve 1 TW (1,000,000,000,000 watts) with 100-watt units:
\(\text{Number of 100-watt units} = \frac{1 \text{ TW}}{100 \text{ watts}} = 100,000,000,000 \text{ units}\)[11 Orders of Magnitude]10^11
1-Kilowatt (KW) Reactors: This is similar to NASA’s Kilopower project, which is designed for space applications. To achieve 1 TW with 1 KW units:
\(\text{Number of 1 kW units} = \frac{1 \text{ TW}}{1 \text{ kW}} = 1,000,000,000 \text{ units}\)[9 Orders of Magnitude]10^9
1-Megawatt(MW) Reactors: These are Refrigerator and shipping container sized reactors, which are not yet commercially available. To achieve 1 TW with 1MW units:
\(\text{Number of 1 MW units} = \frac{1 \text{ TW}}{1 \text{ MW}}= 1,000,000 \text{ units}\)[6 Orders of Magnitude]10^6
1-Gigawatt (GW) Reactors: These are large-scale commercial reactors similar to those currently in operation around the world. To achieve 1 TW with 1 GW units:
\(\text{Number of 1 GW units} = \frac{1 \text{ TW}}{1 \text{ GW}}= 1000 \text{ units} \)[3 Orders of Magnitude]10^3
Timeframe for Production
To achieve a terawatt of output within a 25-year timeframe, we need to calculate the average production rates for each type of reactor. Let's break it down:
100-Watt Reactors (RTGs): To produce 10 billion units in 25 years (which equals 300 months), the average production rate would need to be:
\( \frac{10,000,000,000 \text{ units}}{300 \text{ months}} = \frac{33,333,333 \text{ units}}{\text{ month}}\)1-Kilowatt Reactors: To produce 1 billion units in 25 years, the average production rate would be:
\(\frac{1,000,000,000 \text{ units}}{300 \text{ months}} = \frac{3,333,333 \text{ units}}{\text{ month}}\)1-Megawatt Reactors: To produce 1 million units in 25 years, the average production rate would be:
\( \frac{1,000,000 \text{ units}}{300 \text{ months}} =\frac{3,333 \text{ units}}{\text{ month}}\)1-Gigawatt Reactors: To produce 1,000 units in 25 years, the average production rate would be:
\(\frac{1,000 \text{ units}}{300 \text{ months}} = \frac{3.3 \text{ units}}{\text{ month}}\)
These production rates highlight the immense challenge of scaling electrical power generation generally. They apply to any unit sources which produce equivalent outputs.
I’ve simply chosen nuclear devices because they produce energy 24/7 compared to intermittent sources and are the most scalable.
The SMR(Small Modular Reactor) Megawatt scale power sources will likely also play a strong role as an optimally sized production power unit.
Now that we know what the parameters are the possibility of meeting 1 terawatt-level demand within a century. We will actually need one or a few more orders of magnitude in production increases to replace transportation energy as well as the rest of the worlds heating energy usage as well.
The production of smaller reactors, despite their simplicity, would require an unprecedented increase in manufacturing scale capability. Meanwhile, producing enough large reactors would necessitate a unified determined effort and considerable advancements in commercial production nuclear technology supply chains, workforce and infrastructure development. A combination and optimization of the scale and production density will be critical to making this scale of production possible.
Regulatory Constraints and Workforce Challenges
As highlighted, the expansion of nuclear power is not merely a technical issue. Regulatory environments and workforce capabilities significantly influence the pace and scale of nuclear plant construction.
An industry so hampered by regulatory constraints and requiring a specialized workforce makes the development of modern nuclear energy impossible without radical cuts/changes pipelines built into the process.
The USA is not slated to build any reactors next year, while China is slated to complete 6…
The Thorium Factor: Abundance and Accessibility
Fission, and particularly thorium-based fission, stands out due to thorium's abundance and ease of processing. Unlike conventional solid-fueled reactors, which suffer from inefficient fuel utilization and waste management issues, thorium reactors offer a more sustainable and efficient alternative.
Recycling Nuclear Waste: A Missed Opportunity
A critical aspect often overlooked in the public eye of nuclear power is for potential recycling of nuclear waste. Modern nuclear reactors don’t fully consume their fuel, rather than being stored long term, the leftover fuel could be recycled into new fuel. This approach not only addresses waste management concerns but also enhances the overall efficiency of nuclear power generation.
Conclusion: Navigating Towards a Sustainable Energy Future
In conclusion, scaling energy sources is a super multi dimensional deeply intertwined technological, regulatory governance, and environmental cooperative effort. Nuclear energy, particularly with advancements in thorium technology and waste recycling, makes is possible to meet global energy demands cleanly and efficiently.
However, realizing this potential is imperative to our long term prosperity. Requiring a concerted public and private effort to overcome the regulatory, social, and logistical challenges, paving the way for a sustainable and power-abundant future. Everyone needs your help to understand and support the prosperous future Fission and Thorium will provide!
In another article I will detail how I think we can use the orders of magnitude as a method for independent federated governance. Which may be necessary for orchestrating humanity to independently work on power infrastructure such as the mass manufacturing of nuclear power technology.
Orders of Magnitude: A Governance Structure
The First Order is 1. You. The individual. All Americans should publicly ratify the constitution, and swear to uphold it’s principles.
The Second order is <10 People, a group who ratify a mutual agreement of law outside the Constitution applicable within their property. Not unlike a micro state, in federalist style.
Third order <100 people ratifying mutual law but which is not universally ratified, valid within the property of the individuals socially contracted.
Fourth Order <1000 so on and so on until consensus moves the ratification to the first order constitution.
Every Individual should personally ratify the constitution upon taking adult responsibility for their own lives, forming a consensus baseline for “The Social Contract”(No Physical Violence: OR ELSE) is built to contain the naturally expanding bureaucracy that typify’s governments. A personal promise to restrict government, not citizens.
To Be Continued…
