NationStates Jolt Archive

In my physics class we are doing an energy debate and it is going to be extremley competitive and I really, really, want to win. It's the single largest project I've received all year and is a significant part of my grade.

There are four different energy groups:
1. Fossil Fuel
2. Nuclear
3. Hydroelectric, solar, wind
4. Hydrogen

I'm doing #3. Any advice that could me win, or how to structure my arguement?

Regime of Fear: tell horror stories about the other energy sources and why they're bad

Yeah I can probably do that for oil. But that wouldn't work on hydrogen, and at least not as well on nuclear...

Thank God you're not doing 1. or 4.

You have the clean, safe arguments - they're easy. Don't let them win the wind turbines look ugly argument, though - which would they rather have on their doorstep - a turbine or a nuclear power station? You also have to argue that they won't be blanketing the country - they cover quite a large area overall, but you'd be spreading them out.

Your main problem is efficiency - that's a serious problem because you'd never meet all of the country's needs with renewable energy (you can pretty much forget about solar panels almost everywhere in Britain - I get the feeling you're British?). However, with wind, tidal and HE power, the amount of energy produced will be higher in the winter weather - handy because we use more energy then too.

You could argue that houses could be built with small wind turbines on them, and with each contributing a very small amount, it boosts the national grid (again, not very much, but your best angle is arguing to maximise the amount of renewable energy, not going completely renewable).

Of course, nuclear is the only power that will solve the impending energy crisis. Unfortunately.

Forgot - make sure you actually do some research, and not just rely on our hearsay.

I am not going to get into specifics but take a look at the new ways to extract hydrogen from various substances (has become a lot more cost and energy effective)

For wind don’t forget to stress the new non standard windmill styles (specifically vertical windmills that reduce noise … also do not have as much of an issue with wind directional change and are extremely efficient)

Your strongest hitter in practical smaller usage is hydrogen … if you are focusing on automotives

If you are doing large scale production … as of now hydroelectric are looking only as efficient on smaller scale … so wind or solar (though wind may be better) also advances in photovoltaic technology.

So basically decide where your argument lies

Small scale production or fossil fuel … power plant replacement.

That could make the difference in which technology to stress … pick the one that fits the flow of your argument and stress the new changes or the things that differ from common knowledge

attack hydrogen by stating that it isn't an energy source.
H2 is gained from chemical processes, usually H2O->H2+O2
They need electrical energy for this...

attack hydrogen by stating that it isn't an energy source.
H2 is gained from chemical processes, usually H2O->H2+O2
They need electrical energy for this...

Unfortunately, once they get fusion right, that will be miniscule compared to the electricity it will produce.

Frankly you're screwed. None of option 3 work very well.

Maybe you should talk about how in the "future" satellites in orbit can be used to more efficiently "harvest" solar energy in space and "beam" it down to earth or something. I did hear of that idea somewhere.

Thank God you're not doing 1. or 4.

You have the clean, safe arguments - they're easy. Don't let them win the wind turbines look ugly argument, though - which would they rather have on their doorstep - a turbine or a nuclear power station? You also have to argue that they won't be blanketing the country - they cover quite a large area overall, but you'd be spreading them out.

Your main problem is efficiency - that's a serious problem because you'd never meet all of the country's needs with renewable energy (you can pretty much forget about solar panels almost everywhere in Britain - I get the feeling you're British?). However, with wind, tidal and HE power, the amount of energy produced will be higher in the winter weather - handy because we use more energy then too.

You could argue that houses could be built with small wind turbines on them, and with each contributing a very small amount, it boosts the national grid (again, not very much, but your best angle is arguing to maximise the amount of renewable energy, not going completely renewable).

Of course, nuclear is the only power that will solve the impending energy crisis. Unfortunately.


ok I am curious ... why not 4?

oh and ignore my post about hydrogen extraction ... I was an idiot and dident read .. :)

Frankly you're screwed. None of option 3 work very well.

Maybe you should talk about how in the "future" satellites in orbit can be used to more efficiently "harvest" solar energy in space and "beam" it down to earth or something. I did hear of that idea somewhere.
Um sim city lol

If the Nuclear group knows their stuff, they could smack you down for using Chernobyl as an argument.

... but don't listen to me, I'm with the enemy. :p

If the Nuclear group knows their stuff, they could smack you down for using Chernobyl as an argument.

... but don't listen to me, I'm with the enemy. :p
I agree … also stay away from radiation leaks

Fossil fuel plants put out more then the nuclear guys (radon)

Might want to argue that as a point against fossil fuels

Um sim city lol

Oh yeah, now I remember. Well bugger that then.

Um sim city lol
There actually have been plans for such a device...

(First thing I thought about was Sim City too)

ok I am curious ... why not 4?

oh and ignore my post about hydrogen extraction ... I was an idiot and dident read .. :)

Well you can argue it is the future, but fusion won't solve the current energy crisis. Most power stations are well past their design life, and something needs to be built to make up for the impending shortfall when they're decommissioned. 1's too dirty, 3's not efficient enough, and 4 doesn't exist yet. Whoever's got nuclear power is laughing.

Oh yeah, now I remember. Well bugger that then.
Still I guess possible … but they would have to figure out how to “Beam” energy first lol … at least in an efficient manner

Well you can argue it is the future, but fusion won't solve the current energy crisis. Most power stations are well past their design life, and something needs to be built to make up for the impending shortfall when they're decommissioned. 1's too dirty, 3's not efficient enough, and 4 doesn't exist yet. Whoever's got nuclear power is laughing.
um 4 is hydrogen ... like as in fuel cell technology?

Still I guess possible … but they would have to figure out how to “Beam” energy first lol … at least in an efficient manner
that was the major problem... efficiency.

Unfortunately, once they get fusion right, that will be miniscule compared to the electricity it will produce.

you are talking about fusion, not about hydrogen fuel...

if i were allowed to take a stance, i would go for nuclear while researching fusion.

that was the major problem... efficiency.
Probably still more efficient just to collect it down here anyways. After the loss beaming through atmosphere … and the cost of placing and maintaining a satellite that can collect that amount of energy (currently they only collect roughly what the use)

um 4 is hydrogen ... like as in fuel cell technology?

Okay, I'm stupid, I know nothing about fuel cell technology - but hydrogen is also the base fuel for fusion technology. How does fuel cell technology work?

Still I guess possible … but they would have to figure out how to “Beam” energy first lol … at least in an efficient manner


Use microwaves. :)

Use microwaves. :)
Still not efficent (now you really are pulling it from sim city)

Still not efficent (now you really are pulling it from sim city)
LOL.... yay for people who project video games on the real world

Okay, I'm stupid, I know nothing about fuel cell technology - but hydrogen is also the base fuel for fusion technology. How does fuel cell technology work?
http://www.risoe.dk/afm/sofc/Howwork/Prin.htm

essentially combining hydrogen with other elements producing electricity

The benefit is the only output (at all) is h2O

The downside until recently … separating hydrogen from our surroundings cost more energy then the output … that currently has changed.

LOL.... yay for people who project video games on the real world
you mean they are NOT the real world?

:eek:

Still not efficent (now you really are pulling it from sim city)

Isn't there a "gap" frequency in the spectrum that the atmosphere is totally transparent to. If we could find that, and then find a way to collect that frequency efficiently, we'd be in business.

5. Hydrothermic
6. Tidal
7. Geologic

Okay, I'm stupid, I know nothing about fuel cell technology - but hydrogen is also the base fuel for fusion technology. How does fuel cell technology work?

Yes, hydrogen as in fuel cell technology.

For cars, it combines hydrogen and oxygen, which releases electricity, and the fuel cell uses that eletricity to power the car (or whatever else). The only by-products are heat and water. It can be up to 90% efficient, while gas is about 20% efficient today.

Here is what I'm thinking.

1. Oil - 'Peak Oil' will be reached between 2015 and 2033- the point at which oil production peaks out. From that point on, we will produce less and less oil until it is gone. Meanwhile, demand will go up, causing a skyrocket in prices if we don't change energy soon. Which means recessions, instability, etc.

Also, massive pollution problems. Seven of the top ten cleanest countries use hydroelectric as their number one power source. Nine of the top ten dirtiest countries use oil or gas. Global warming, CO2, acid rain, oil spills, etc.

2. Nuclear - Why can't I bring up radiation leaking? (not a challenge, I just don't know) If I can do that safely, it would be a huge help. Also, we have radioactive waste dumps, etc. around the world, which is awful for the environment

4. Hydrogen - Hydrogen has to be created which requires either gas or electricity (for electrolysis.) With gas, we have the same problem of dependence and finite resources as we did before, plus we still have CO2 emissions. With electric, we would have to add about 100 extra nuclear plants just to make the electricity to make the hydrogen.

accually its called geothermal energy... that would be another good one yeah, but don't forget hyro energy (namly, dams although they do have a large negative evironmental factor). Do some resreach on alternative sources like yes the fuel cell... and there are some other new breakthroughs going on, But of course the oil companies put the cork on em' right away. I believe if the fuel cell and other remarkable invetions like using electromagnets to power a generator, would not be constantly shut down, then world energy problems would be non-existent! :headbang:

5. Hydrothermic
6. Tidal
7. Geologic

5 and 6 are probably mine, as well. Geologic?

2. Nuclear - Why can't I bring up radiation leaking? (not a challenge, I just don't know) If I can do that safely, it would be a huge help. Also, we have radioactive waste dumps, etc. around the world, which is awful for the environment

Plenty of lifeless places on earth.... Dumping now is in salt mines (correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing lives there

2. Nuclear - Why can't I bring up radiation leaking? (not a challenge, I just don't know) If I can do that safely, it would be a huge help. Also, we have radioactive waste dumps, etc. around the world, which is awful for the environment

After a few hundred years, nucelar waste stops being radioactive. The only problem left is heavy metal poisoning. It also degrades eventually, which is more than can be said for coal ash.

They don't just pour nuclear waste out the barrel into a pit or something. Take Yucca mountain (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/people/index.shtml) for instance.

Yes, hydrogen as in fuel cell technology.

For cars, it combines hydrogen and oxygen, which releases electricity, and the fuel cell uses that eletricity to power the car (or whatever else). The only by-products are heat and water.

Here is what I'm thinking.



4. Hydrogen - Hydrogen has to be created which requires either gas or electricity (for electrolysis.) With gas, we have the same problem of dependence and finite resources as we did before, plus we still have CO2 emissions. With electric, we would have to add about 100 extra nuclear plants just to make the electricity to make the hydrogen.


Look into recent advances in separation technology

PM was reporting that the energy required to separate the fuel required for the current usa’s automobiles can actually be made off just the current waste heat put off by today’s power plants

I would point out that hydrogen fuel is not involved in the production of energy - fuel cells are made to store energy, like batteries. First you have to get the energy and use it to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. When they recombine you get the energy back.

We currently have two options for when fossil fuels run out.
1. Make nuclear energy safer.
2. Make solar energy more efficient.
Hydrogen is a means for storing energy, not a source.
Anything else is not enough, no matter how efficient.

I would point out that hydrogen fuel is not involved in the production of energy - fuel cells are made to store energy, like batteries. First you have to get the energy and use it to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. When they recombine you get the energy back.
Again look into new extraction methods ( I would point at pm)

You really are not “putting energy in” to it … it is like fossil fuels in a way (without the conversion to kinetic energy first) but you are using the most abundant element in the universe.

The problem right now is extracting it … which I guess turns out not to be as much of a problem as we thought … I will try to find links

We currently have two options for when fossil fuels run out.
1. Make nuclear energy safer.
2. Make solar energy more efficient.
Hydrogen is a means for storing energy, not a source.
Anything else is not enough, no matter how efficient.
Again yes it is a storage in an element but we dont have to put the energy into it ... comes built into hydrogen

now on earth it is not as plentifull ... in that case it is extraction not creation ... and there are new ways to do that

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62290,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

here is an example of personal hydrogen extraction

1) Oil is a finite resource so demand will sky rocket as stated, plus the massive amounts of pollution.

2) there are 2 products from a nuclear factory, one taking 600 years to no longer be radioactive, the other taking 20,000 years. We will eventually run out of places to dump them, plus your meltdown possibilities.

4) (my preferred method) Hydrogen is currently extremely hard to harvest making more inneficient than wind/hydro/solar plus hydrogen is extremely combustable (anyone recall the Hindenburg?)

The best method would probably be the alternative energy sources to gain power to harvest the hydrogen, then the fusion would give off enough energy to restart the process plus release usable energy. So, if we can find a more efficient way of harvesting hydrogen i think were on the track to that "unattainable" state of perpetual energy

4) (my preferred method) Hydrogen is currently extremely hard to harvest making more inneficient than wind/hydro/solar plus hydrogen is extremely combustable (anyone recall the Hindenburg?)

The best method would probably be the alternative energy sources to gain power to harvest the hydrogen, then the fusion would give off enough energy to restart the process plus release usable energy. So, if we can find a more efficient way of harvesting hydrogen i think were on the track to that "unattainable" state of perpetual energy
Read my post on harvesting methods

Also as for unstable ;) very much less so then gasoline vapors … why do you think we use gasoline rather then hydrogen in standard engines

Hydrogen is flammable … gas vapors are explosive :) WAY more stable then most fossil fuels … way to quote a myth (btw don’t use that argument in the debate … you will get slammed on it)

was simply stating that it is combustible, which is a down side when unlike fossil fuels the combustion isnt how we obtain the energy from it. If gasoline werent combustable it wouldnt be a fuel, hydrogen being combustible is not a bonus. just trying to think of some downsides to hydrogen, because other than the current harvesting problem, there are very few.

btw, good article, i condone hydrogen usage, but the question was for perils

5 and 6 are probably mine, as well. Geologic?
Think possibly what he meant was temperature differential (putting in deep wells where planetary heat is high enough to make a differential and generate electricity) geothermal

Focus on transmission losses, security of supply. Nuclear and Hydrocarbon Thermal plants tend to be very large point source producers. Line losses are higher the further you have to transmit the power. Also if you have a few big producers the more vulnerable the grid is to one of these falling over or running out of oil or uranium.

Solar, Wind, Tidal are relatively small producers and are spread all around the place can be used to supply local power supplies. Lower power out puts and shorter distances mean less transmission costs. The grid will be more secure cause generation will be more scattered about.




Hydogen - to capture 1 kW of energy in hydrogen reqires about 1.1 kW or more of some other form of energy. So hydrogen is more a way of storing and using energy than generating it.

PS. - the Hindenburg fire was due to the rocket fuel the Germans used as reflective silver paint on the canvas skin, not the Hydrogen gas.

What about ZPE?