Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What “clean energy” sources do you guys think will win out over the next 50 years or so?

I think fossil fuels will still be in place 50 years from now, but more than likely at least cut in half from today’s usage numbers (just guessing).  And hopefully, they’ll continue to refine their processes for “cleaner” ways to use fossil fuels until they can be mostly replaced someday.

Hoping that electric autos get better and better in time…with smaller batteries and longer miles between charges as the tech improves.  Also…hoping the few lithium battery recycling inventions that are on the cutting edge right now will continue to improve so that nearly 100% of all battery materials are continually reusable.  That will at least make lithium mining somewhat more palatable. 

I like the use of wind and solar…I just wish windmills were not so obtrusive and expensive to manufacture (using fossil fuels)…and that they were made of a material that was recyclable.  Burying them after using seems almost criminal.  Also…keep working on better and better solar panels and figure out more ways to use them.  What if our automobile’s skin was 100% solar-capturing?  Roadways?  

I wish there was a way to 100% make nuclear safe where there could never be an accident.   Nuclear is very efficient.  Just don’t want to live through a Chernobyl.

What say you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its u

Although there have been a fair number of nuclear mishaps that deserved public scrutiny, I think the public at large has missed the major negative consequences of coal-fired power plants.  I'm a fan o

I'm disappointed by the fact that we haven't seen the dawn of Nuclear Fusion power within our lifetimes.  That would be the holy grail of clean energy because the "waste" material is helium, which is

On 6/14/2021 at 7:04 AM, titanhog said:

I wish there was a way to 100% make nuclear safe where there could never be an accident.   Nuclear is very efficient.  Just don’t want to live through a Chernobyl.

What say you?

I'm disappointed by the fact that we haven't seen the dawn of Nuclear Fusion power within our lifetimes.  That would be the holy grail of clean energy because the "waste" material is helium, which is useful at birthday parties.   

Also, I think more people will be motivated (or forced?) to provide power for their own homes in the future and live "off-grid".   Hopefully advances in wind, solar, geothermal, and battery technology will mean the long-term end of things like electrical grids and gas pipelines.  Of course, all of this advancement should happen strictly within the framework of the free market, so I am steadfastly against any government incentives or tax breaks to encourage changes in consumer behavior.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some news this week on the Fusion front, The Brits, The Chinese, and The Japanese, have all made recent strides, along with the US and a recent compact design.

There are some saying the first reactor could be could be on line in five years.

I do think more auto mfg.  companies  like GM will commit to battery powered vehicles putting more pressure on the big oil companies.  The only problem with battery in the use of lithium which again is a limited resource.

There are ways for auto charging electric vehicles in the works but requires a lot of infrastructure work to be done. I think we will be seeing a lot more zero carbon footprint buildings as time goes on as well, especially from companies that are socially responsible like Amazon, Apple, and others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

There has been some news this week on the Fusion front, The Brits, The Chinese, and The Japanese, have all made recent strides, along with the US and a recent compact design.

There are some saying the first reactor could be could be on line in five years.

I do think more auto mfg.  companies  like GM will commit to battery powered vehicles putting more pressure on the big oil companies.  The only problem with battery in the use of lithium which again is a limited resource.

There are ways for auto charging electric vehicles in the works but requires a lot of infrastructure work to be done. I think we will be seeing a lot more zero carbon footprint buildings as time goes on as well, especially from companies that are socially responsible like Amazon, Apple, and others.

When it comes to fusion, I'll believe it when I see it.  They have been saying since the early 1990's that we are on the cusp of a Fusion breakthrough, but so far - nothing.  The other thing about Fusion is this:  If someone finally cracks the code that will mark the start of human colonization of the moon...because the best source of tritium is the moon.  So that's another thing that makes the lack of progress on fusion so frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Modern reactors are also far more safe than the types used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The French have been safely generating 80% of their electricity needs with modern reactors for several decades now.

Edited by Rockatansky
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I’ve always wondered is why we haven’t advanced to a place where there are super cost-efficient solar-shingles invented where it makes sense for every home to be built with these shingles that plug into either the home’s electric system or onto an electric grid.  I’m not sure how much energy would be produced if every single house had solar shingles…but surely it would be better than none at all.  However…these shingles need to actually be “shingles” and not glass-looking panels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Modern reactors are also far more safe than the types used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The French have been safely generating 80% of their electricity needs with modern reactors for several decades now.

Finland agrees with you: https://youtu.be/kYpiK3W-g_0

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, titanhog said:

One thing I’ve always wondered is why we haven’t advanced to a place where there are super cost-efficient solar-shingles invented where it makes sense for every home to be built with these shingles that plug into either the home’s electric system or onto an electric grid.  I’m not sure how much energy would be produced if every single house had solar shingles…but surely it would be better than none at all.  However…these shingles need to actually be “shingles” and not glass-looking panels.

Apologies if you were already aware of this but there is a Tesla "Solar Roof" product along those lines https://www.tesla.com/solarroof 

 

They are having some trouble on the affordability front though https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/business/energy-environment/tesla-solar-shingles.html 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GregH said:

Apologies if you were already aware of this but there is a Tesla "Solar Roof" product along those lines https://www.tesla.com/solarroof 

 

They are having some trouble on the affordability front though https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/business/energy-environment/tesla-solar-shingles.html 

Glad to see that someone is working towards that.  And yes…I can imagine it will take a while to figure out how to make something like that affordable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, titanhog said:

Glad to see that someone is working towards that.  And yes…I can imagine it will take a while to figure out how to make something like that affordable.

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies:  https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies:  https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.

I agree on Tesla and their government grants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 3:08 PM, Rockatansky said:

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Although there have been a fair number of nuclear mishaps that deserved public scrutiny, I think the public at large has missed the major negative consequences of coal-fired power plants.  I'm a fan of coal when pollution is minimized, but when pollution is not minimized, coal introduces a lot of toxic chemicals into the environment.  Over time, those add up to a disaster that is on par with a nuclear incident.

I'm amazed that people who are in favor of clean energy don't give more attention to the fact that 50% of the coal burned in the world is burned in China.  Where's the global outcry over the pollution emitted by China?  Here, I will say it for everyone:  China is the worst air polluter in the world.  We could be 100% "clean energy" in the US and Europe and global air quality would continue to decline due to China's pollution.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.