Future Energy Alternatives

[veboc]

For domestic energy production what we really need to do is unleash the nuclear genie once again. Light Water Fast Breeder reactor which use U-235 which is 99.7% of all uranium on the planet. They give us an almost unlimited ammount of fuel and their waste can be reprocessed to far lower concentrations of radiation. No C02, not reliance on foreign nations for fuel. All of this technology exists today!

This accompanied with bio fuels, hybrid gasoline technology, and the expansion of urban transit will bring our country back from the innevitable brink.

[sfmartin]

... and their waste can be reprocessed to far lower concentrations of radiation.

[veboc]

So what exactly does this mean? Waste is the big elephant in the room for nuclear power production and making it a little less concentrated doesn't make the problem disappear.

[ryanmckibben]

Someone posted earlier that they don't see the world learning to use less energy. I submit that one way or another we will be using less energy. Either we will finally figure out that our very existence depends on it and will make the appropriate adjustments or nature will do it for us. Whether it is from the declining output of oil and natural gas wells or the unbelievable amounts of pollution that will be emmited if we try to switch to an all coal system the energy orgy is rapidly appraoching it's end.

We Americans are rushing headlong into a future that will be vastly different then the present. We delude ourselves with the assumption that technology will save us; that we will find some miracle source of energy that will allow us to carry on with business as usual. Some of the proposals out there right now are not just merely delusional, but downright dangerous and irresponsible. Hydrogen and Ethanol are the two that really concern me. These two technologies have been presented to the American people as an alternative energy source. The reality of the situation is that they are no such thing. They are energy carriers, nothing more. With current technology both hydrogen and ethanol are actually net energy losers, meaning it takes more energy to produce then is released during it's use. Switching to either of those technologies would actually make the situation worse.

Renewable energy such as wind, solor, tidal, etc does hold promise if the goal is to supplement traditional electricity generation. To be clear, there is no possible way to replace the amount of hydrocarbons we currently use with renewable energy. Even if it were theoretically possible, which I will concede, pratically it would take a mobilization of resources that this country simply can not afford. Our entire infrastructure is geared toward the use of fossil fuels, changing that would be astronomically expensive, literally bankrupting the entire country.

I wish my assesment wasn't so bleak, but it is honost. I'm sure that I will be derided for not having ideas and just shooting down all the alternatives, but mine is an honost assesment of our situation and nothing short of learning to live with less energy will change the inevitable.

[Captain Worley]

^ I don't think it is really a bleak assessment. Other sources of energy will come online and as oil prices go up, it will be feasible to drill deeper and use new technologies to extract the oil. I don't think it is delusional to think technology will save us, in fact, the opposite is true. Better cheaper solar panels, more efficient appliances, and more efficient vehicles are just a few examples of how technology has made us more efficient.

[JDC]

^ I don't think it is really a bleak assessment. Other sources of energy will come online and as oil prices go up, it will be feasible to drill deeper and use new technologies to extract the oil. I don't think it is delusional to think technology will save us, in fact, the opposite is true. Better cheaper solar panels, more efficient appliances, and more efficient vehicles are just a few examples of how technology has made us more efficient.

[neon9]

Someone posted earlier that they don't see the world learning to use less energy. I submit that one way or another we will be using less energy.

[cdub]

We are like a country full of crack addicts, hoping our next fix will save us. Instead of addressing the issue of consumption, we look for a miracle. Why not take steps to reduce what contributes to our problems? The only way we'll fix our issues is to quit cold turkey. Until that point, we'll keep perpetuating our problems.

Here's an interesting study talking of Post-Peak planning.

10 Principles of Post Peak planning

The section that caught me was on biofuels. Based on current efficiency, it would take 50% - 100% of the earth's available, arable land to produce enough crops to sustain our current levels of consumption. Where's the food produced?

I do think there's a place for biofuels, just not going to be the solution for everyone. I don't understand why some communities, particularly rural ones, don't create Co-ops and produce their own biofuels. They could contribute monetarily or by alloting a certain amount of crops each year for 'X' gallons of biofuel. Sure seems like it would help to sustain these areas. Would also lead to more localization, which is another thing that would help reduce consumption.

As for suburban living, it's going to have to change drastically. Think streetcar suburbs of the early 20th century. I don't think everyone wants to live at Manhattan densities, but having neighborhoods developed that encourage walking, mass transit, and local trips (not across town for a gallon of milk) are what we're going to need.

[JDC]

I've just begun Kunstler's The Long Emergency. For those of y'all unfamilar with his work, he's perhaps best known for the book The Geography of Nowhere, a scathing analysis of the placelessness of American suburbia. The Long Emergency is a look at what could happen (or what may have already begun to happen) in the post-peak oil world. The author places himself about halfway between the hopeful ones who predict human ingenuity and technology will save our collective a$$es and the doomsday folks who see a gradual human "die-off" in a post-fossil fuel world. More info

[FlawlessDeveloper]

Nuclear in 25.

Planck Energy in 75

[cdub]

4 hour work days in 10.

Hoverboards in 20.

Sounds a lot like Back to the Future, except lately the future isn't producing.

[miamivicefan]

In regards to solar power, I think a whole lot more could be done to heat buildings and provide hotwater using basically 1970's technology by putting panels on the roofs of flat buildings. (not solar cells)

There is another technology called a solar sunflower which kinda looks like a flower. The petals of the flower are mirrors that point to the pistil in the center and in full sun it gets extremely hot. Oil is circulated through it and used to operate a steam generator. The entire unit is small enough to be located at individual businesses and homes. It too was invented in the 70s, but 2000's technology have made controling it very economical. It could supplement a lot of electrical needs in this country.

I think the USA needs to follow Europe's lead and move from gasoline powered vehicles to diesel. It is much easier to biodiesel than it is to produce ethanol plus the engines get significantly more mileage.

[neon9]

I've just begun Kunstler's The Long Emergency. For those of y'all unfamilar with his work, he's perhaps best known for the book The Geography of Nowhere, a scathing analysis of the placelessness of American suburbia. The Long Emergency is a look at what could happen (or what may have already begun to happen) in the post-peak oil world. The author places himself about halfway between the hopeful ones who predict human ingenuity and technology will save our collective a$$es and the doomsday folks who see a gradual human "die-off" in a post-fossil fuel world. More info

[ryanmckibben]

^ I don't think it is really a bleak assessment. Other sources of energy will come online and as oil prices go up, it will be feasible to drill deeper and use new technologies to extract the oil. I don't think it is delusional to think technology will save us, in fact, the opposite is true. Better cheaper solar panels, more efficient appliances, and more efficient vehicles are just a few examples of how technology has made us more efficient.

[nowensone]

In 8th grade my science teacher said I was stupid when I answered the same question posed in the OP with "gravity". I swore right then that I would figure it out one day and then track her down... Anyway, I never did become an engineer or physicist, maybe a part-time tinker if that, but I still hold out hope there is a simple and elegant way to harness gravity for energy (useful, efficiently produced amounts). Then again, maybe that is discussion for a Star Trek convention.

[Captain Worley]

^I have a feeling that years and years from now, we very well may get power from gravity. We already do, in a way, from hydroelectric power. Hopefully, one day someone will crack the unified field theory (I think that's the name) and that may help in the quest.

[neon9]

I know the topic is 'future' energy alternatives, but I think it is very hard to realistically look at future energy alternatives unless we look at our current energy use, its forms and its projected growth. Then maybe that will give us an idea of the feasibility of these ideas and the effort required to implement them.

This is a interesting little article about our current oil usage-

The world uses over one cubic mile of oil per year.

The IEEE Spectrum (electrical engineering magazine) recently ran an article stating this and this article contains links to that one as well as some clarification of the terms and amounts. It helps put the vast amounts we're talking about here in perspective.

[Puant en la Baye]

Here's one future alternative: Develop energy storage systems. I think we're still primitive when it comes to storing energy. Right now, we're like hunter-gatherers. We hunt and gather things like coal and oil, but we don't actively create new stores of energy. We use the energy pretty much as soon as we gather it.

We need a revolution in energy storage technology, so that we can pack away vast amounts of new energy and release it much later, precisely when and where it is needed.

Solar and wind energy is intermittent, of course, and sometimes comes as just a trickle. But if we could take this intermittent energy, collect it, built up reserves, and release is as needed, that would be quite an alternative to how we collect and disperse energy today. Massive amounts of energy that are released in big storms, such as hurricanes. If we could harness even a small part of a big storm and store it away for delivery when needed, how great would that be?

Currently, we have only a few ways to store potential energy. Batteries are primitive, they are to energy storage what a stone or wooden wheel is to transportation. Battery technology hasn't even really advanced very much in 50 years. Storing energy in water behind dams, though effective, is also primitive and has serious environmental consequences. . Other than that, what have we developed in energy storage technology? Really big springs? C'mon, we can do better than that! Where's that flux capacitor?

Mother Nature does much better than we do. Consider that wood, coal, and oil are all really just ways in which mother nature stores away the sun's energy. We can find a way to do something similiar. What, exactly? I have no idea. We did tap into the energy stored in mass (E=mc2) but of course nuclear energy has it's issues.

One other thing: If we could tap into the earth's heat deep down under ground, we'd be able to generate power from that.

[hood]

One other thing: If we could tap into the earth's heat deep down under ground, we'd be able to generate power from that.

[Puant en la Baye]

It's called geothermal and many buildings being built right now use geothermal energy to both heat and cool themselves. There are also a handful of geothermal power plants, I think.

sure though.

[hood]

Yeah, Geothermal is nice, but I'm thinking deeper--as in getting deep enough underground to where it's so hot that steam can be generated to run turbines. Iceland has these, because there the very hot near-molten rock is very close to the surface.

[Captain Worley]

Newsweek had a short article on a University in Florida that was looking at underwater turbines to harness the power of water currents. The concept sketch looked like a fat bladed windmill farm.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Nuclear Energy is the only sensible general energy alternative to gas, coal, and oil. Modern reactors reuse much of the waste product and are safe.

[suburban george3]

A Yahoo Messenger friend of mine brought to my attention this article about Startech, a CT based company researching Plasma Converter technology that would create clean energy by burning ordinary trash currently being taken to our landfills. Supposedly it works like a backwards "Big Bang" you get nothing from something. It can even handle everything from "diapers to chemical weapons."

The initial firing sequence does consume energy, but then it's excess back into the grid. If this pans out, cities could supply trash to these Plasma Converters and it be another revenue stream, not an expense.

Popular Science article about Plasma Converters

[JDC]

A Yahoo Messenger friend of mine brought to my attention this article about Startech, a CT based company researching Plasma Converter technology that would create clean energy by burning ordinary trash currently being taken to our landfills. Supposedly it works like a backwards "Big Bang" you get nothing from something. It can even handle everything from "diapers to chemical weapons."

The initial firing sequence does consume energy, but then it's excess back into the grid. If this pans out, cities could supply trash to these Plasma Converters and it be another revenue stream, not an expense.

Popular Science article about Plasma Converters