NationStates Jolt Archive

I was Wondering if anyone had any Ideas for an alternate means of making energy. Seeing as our oil crisis is going nowhere.

Well the most commonly known ones are solar and wind, but they are highly inefficient at this stage.

Hydro is used in some parts of the world... actually the place where I live is powered by hydro.

Hmmmm alcohol is being used in cars now... not very well, but I expect with time it will improve.

If cold fusion could be done... haha, not happening.

My brilliant plan involves placing two power stations right next to each other. One creates energy through Nuclear Fission. The other creates energy through Nuclear Fusion. Once everything's ironed out, we get minimal waste and a lot of energy. Of course, it'll take a long time to get there technologically, ad the oil companies will fight it all the way...

Midgets forced to pedal bicycles hooked up to lightbulbs.

Hydrogen fuel. It is the process of turning hydrogen and oxygen into water, which releases energy. We have the capacity of obtaining the hydrogen from vegetative matter and methanol, as well as using electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. If we used nuclear energy, or even natural energy like windmills, than we could have massive amounts of fuel with very little environmental impact. And hydrogen burns in a column, and though it is highly flammible, it is much safer than fossil fuels. Unfortunately, it would harm the global economy, though not as much if we actually did it well. But humans don't like change, because we're all screwed up f**kwads. :headbang:

human flesh

Plutonium fusion--fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create titanic amounts of energy.... I hope... :D

The eastern bloc is intrested in alternetive energy for strengthining the state defense systems, oil is masses, alternitive energy could be good to strengthen state.

My brilliant plan involves placing two power stations right next to each other. One creates energy through Nuclear Fission. The other creates energy through Nuclear Fusion. Once everything's ironed out, we get minimal waste and a lot of energy. Of course, it'll take a long time to get there technologically, ad the oil companies will fight it all the way...

Thats just plain silly, I thought of that idea back when I was in grade 9 and was heavily stomped by my Physics teacher the next day, but I thought it was a pretty good figgin idea till then.

1. Fusion doesn't exist in any usable form for electrical power generation today. Live with it.
2. Fusion = hydrogen + hydrogen to yield helium whereas fission = uranium 235 splitting to form a helium atom and a thorium atom or something of that size. They are not the opposite forms of each other, or one would generate power and the other would absorb it.

Fusion. Cold fusion is a proven impossibility, but there is a way to fuse materials through using a high-powered laser beam. The product would be the energy and water, which would be used to continue to cool the reactor down to prevent overheating. One reactor like this would be sufficient to power all of Montana, Idaho, and Utah.
However, we'd need the proper fuel: two isotopes of hydrogen to use. One we have quite abundently on Earth: dueteriam, or heavy water. The other, an isotope known as helium-3, is quite abundent everywhere in the solar system except Earth. A large amount was found in the soil sample taken at Shorty crater by Apollo 17. Build a reactor, send a ship to gather a large amount of this isotope from the moon, and we can begin powering the world in a way that is so clean, we'd never have to worry about major pollution again. We just would need to set up regular trips to the moon to gather it, and we could easily do that with our current technology. Not to mention we could always build a fusion engine to power these ships.

-Solar
-Wind
-Biomass
-Wave/tide
-Geothermal
-Hydro
-Alcohol for fuel, yes.
-Hydrogen run cars - the tech. already exist

Personally, I think all houses should be built with solar panels for tiles (or at least on the roof, but the tiles do exist)

All cars should be run on hydrogen or ethanol.

Building can be built over very small holes running 100m or so into the groung allowing heat regulation. Very simple, I think about $10,000 Australian per hole, must be done before built. Good for office blocks etc.

Oh, and nuclear is well worth considering also. WELL worth considering.

Fusion is very promising. Right now it's at the break-even point, where it produces as much energy as it takes to carry out the process.

Plutonium fusion--fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create titanic amounts of energy.... I hope... :D

An atom with the atomic mass of twice that of plutonium (2 plut atoms fused) would break up quickly. This is because it would be highly unstable and it would give off large amounts of energy in splitting. This implies that is took large amounts of energy to make it form.

The laws of physics: brutally stomping my plans for quick and easy energy production since 1992.

I don't know about in America, but in Australia, there are two big possibilities for an alternate base-load capacity: tidal, and geothermal.
Some places in Australia have about the most massive tides on Earth, so it would make sense to get energy out of it, especially as the power source (the Moon) isn't exactly oing to go away for a long time.
Geothermal power in Australia isn't like conventional geothermal power, since we don't have the active plate boundaries needed to keep magma near the surface. Instead, we'd get the energy from radioactive granite - hot DRY rocks. Feasibility studies are already underway for this in the north of South Australia.

An atom with the atomic mass of twice that of plutonium (2 plut atoms fused) would break up quickly. This is because it would be highly unstable and it would give off large amounts of energy in splitting.
Therefore, turning this technology into a BOMB!!! *evil grin*

Imagine the destruction caused by a plutonium fusion bomb.... enough energy to sink half the florida peninsula!

Fusion is very promising. Right now it's at the break-even point, where it produces as much energy as it takes to carry out the process.

Thats the energy break even point, that doesn't account for the manpower and capital it takes to build one of these freekin things, or get the fuel. Plus the labor to keep one of these plants running would be considerably more expensive than the current method of hiring children to shovel coal into a furnace.

I didn't thing fusion was at the break even point yet, is that with the lasers or with the magnetic taurus?

Therefore, turning this technology into a BOMB!!! *evil grin*

Imagine the destruction caused by a plutonium fusion bomb.... enough energy to sink half the florida peninsula!


Only if you plan to make it in florida, because by "quickly" splitting I mean within millionths of a second or soemthing like that. And you would still have to gather that amount of energy together to create said super atom.

I don't know about in America, but in Australia, there are two big possibilities for an alternate base-load capacity: tidal, and geothermal.
Some places in Australia have about the most massive tides on Earth, so it would make sense to get energy out of it, especially as the power source (the Moon) isn't exactly oing to go away for a long time.
Geothermal power in Australia isn't like conventional geothermal power, since we don't have the active plate boundaries needed to keep magma near the surface. Instead, we'd get the energy from radioactive granite - hot DRY rocks. Feasibility studies are already underway for this in the north of South Australia.

Yes, tidal around Broome, and around the North West particularly. And yes, thats why I emphisised geothermal. Thank goodness somebody's looking into it.

Thats just plain silly, I thought of that idea back when I was in grade 9 and was heavily stomped by my Physics teacher the next day, but I thought it was a pretty good figgin idea till then.

1. Fusion doesn't exist in any usable form for electrical power generation today. Live with it.
2. Fusion = hydrogen + hydrogen to yield helium whereas fission = uranium 235 splitting to form a helium atom and a thorium atom or something of that size. They are not the opposite forms of each other, or one would generate power and the other would absorb it.

Actualy, they are opposite forms of each other and one does absorb energy when the other generates it.

Any elements can be fussed, given the right conditions. All heavy elements in the universe are a result of fusion. The problem is that fusing elements heavier than iron requires more energy than is released. Fission of heavy elements produces more energy than is used, but fissing elements lighter than iron requires more energy than is produced.


Currently, nuclear fission is the best course for mass production of electricity. It produces less waste and enviromental damage than all other forms of energy. Windmills can cause massive weather disturbances if overused. Hydroelectric plants wrek havok on river life and often flood low-laying areas. Geothermal is good, but it is only available in a few places. It also contributes to the cooling of the Earth's mantle and hastens the loss of the magnetic field that protects us from deadly cosmic rays. But, that's still take several million years.
Solar power requires a millions of photovoltaic pannels to be a viable commercial power production method. There are also some estimates that suggest the production of a solar panel requires more energy than is likely to be produced in the pannel's lifetime.
Uranium is decaying right now. We can't stop it so we might as well take advantage of it.

Only if you plan to make it in florida, because by "quickly" splitting I mean within millionths of a second or soemthing like that. And you would still have to gather that amount of energy together to create said super atom.
I already have a name for it: Pisces Centaurium. Named after my Empire's capital in my "Civilization" game.

Anything renewable is more expensive than coal and oil produced power (at the moment, and in the near term me thinks, although tidal is getting looked at more now) I would like to know what the future of transportation energy is (replacement for gasoline and diesel) hydrogen has to come from somewhere and ethanol is still expensive (more than gas or diesel)

And why the hell does nuclear keep getting left out? When was the last time the US put money into building more/better nuclear power plants?

Zero Point Energy!

Actualy, they are opposite forms of each other and one does absorb energy when the other generates it.

Any elements can be fussed, given the right conditions. All heavy elements in the universe are a result of fusion. The problem is that fusing elements heavier than iron requires more energy than is released. Fission of heavy elements produces more energy than is used, but fissing elements lighter than iron requires more energy than is produced.

I meant the way they are used to generate power, they are not opposites of each other, ones fuel is not the others product, and vica versa, otherwise the conversion back and forth between hydrogen and helium would produce lots of power

I've thought of something similar regarding the side-by-side nuclear reactors. Yes, the main product of nuclear fission is the stuff that is now radioactive and useless, plus helium. But the other product of the reaction is a number of neutrons. These neutrons can then be used to make either deuterium or tritium to be used in the fusion process.

As for fusing plutonium nuclei together: it won't work. Fusion produces energy when creating nuclei up to a normal iron nucleus. For nuclei larger than iron, fission is what allows energy to become electricity. But for iron, neither fission nor fusion produces energy, but both processes take it up. You'd be losing a lot of energy trying to fuse two plutonium nuclei together.

Zero Point Energy!

I remember hearing that before, but what is Zero Point Energy or what game/book is it from?

Zero Point Energy!

Already out of the question, as it requires matter to get down to 0 Kelvins, which is impossible.

Humans. The human body produces over 12,000 BTUs per hour.

Humans. The human body produces over 12,000 BTUs per hour.

Let me guess, the Matrix?

Already out of the question, as it requires matter to get down to 0 Kelvins, which is impossible.
With current scientific understanding, yes, absolute zero is indeed impossible. But we may come upon some revolutionary new physical theory, which might actually make it possible. But the same could be said about cold fusion...

Humans. The human body produces over 12,000 BTUs per hour.
Goddamnit, use calories, not BTU's. The Imperial System sucks, metric all the way!

Humans. The human body produces over 12,000 BTUs per hour.

Nay, when I read your suggestion, I enslaved the human race, tryed it, and found it wasn't worth it so I put you all back.

Silly lying matrix...

Goddamnit, use calories, not BTU's. The Imperial System sucks, metric all the way!

Would you be willing to go on metric time?

Would you be willing to go on metric time?
Is there such a thing? Since the form of time I use involves milliseconds, I would say that it has metric elements to it, but I would indeed prefer it if a new metric system of time measurement was contrived. Though it would take some adjusting, I guess...

Therefore, turning this technology into a BOMB!!! *evil grin*

Imagine the destruction caused by a plutonium fusion bomb.... enough energy to sink half the florida peninsula!
How bout we skip that and go straight to antimatter?

I remember hearing that before, but what is Zero Point Energy or what game/book is it from?

See Half-life 2: Zero Point Energy Manipulator aka: Gravity Gun.

My solution to the power issue: Anti-Matter.
We've already created it, we just need to harness it. It's been theorized that 1 gram would yield enough energy to power New York city for a week. We just need a bunch of particle accelerators to make the stuff.

Of course, when the stuff meets matter (anything not in a vaccuum) it will annihilate everything in a large area. It's like adding 1 and -1, you get 0. Boom.

Goddamnit, use calories, not BTU's. The Imperial System sucks, metric all the way!

I disagree, A billion is a million million, and thats the way it should be.

Fusion power looks promising. If they can just get their fingers out and get on with building the experimental reactor (Really people, does it matter where it's built?) then we could make some pretty good progress. Transport's a little more difficult. There is hydroegen power, but I'm not sure about the safety concerns in a car. Biomass looks like it could be viable, and it would also help out the agricultural sector with new cash crops. Though there are environmental concerns. Or they could try more for electric power.

I definitely think it would be a sensible thing to go for renewable energy sources, even if it isn't completely economically sound in the short term. We'd no longer need to mess around in the middle east, and it could do wonders for the environment.

I prefer ethonal and methonal

ethonal from corn, once you have corn, its cheap. I live in Iowa, a state in the midwest of the USA, and the gas that is mixed with ethonal is cheaper then normal gas, we also have cars that run off 80-90% ethonal.

The NASCAR even uses alchol as well, not sure on which form, they have been doing it for years. Though the oil tyrants don't want it to catch on, they lose their riches that way.

Hydrogen fuel. It is the process of turning hydrogen and oxygen into water, which releases energy. We have the capacity of obtaining the hydrogen from vegetative matter and methanol, as well as using electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. If we used nuclear energy, or even natural energy like windmills, than we could have massive amounts of fuel with very little environmental impact. And hydrogen burns in a column, and though it is highly flammible, it is much safer than fossil fuels. Unfortunately, it would harm the global economy, though not as much if we actually did it well. But humans don't like change, because we're all screwed up f**kwads. :headbang:
First, let's distinguish between an energy source and an energy carrier.

Hydrogen is not usually found in nature, so it's not an energy source. You can make hydrogen gas from water by electrolysis, but that requires that you get energy from somewhere else to hydrolyze the water. Why would you do such a thing? Well, maybe you can use the hydrogen in some place where you can't use the direct source. For example, you don't want to have nuclear-powered cars, but you want to use nuclear energy as your source. So, you use nuclear energy to make hydrogen-from-water, and then use the hydrogen in the cars. Thus, hydrogen is, at best, an energy carrier, NOT an energy source. How efficient such a thing would be is a separate question, which I won't try to answer, here.

If you're using nuclear power to make hydrogen, then uranium or plutonium is your energy source, If you're using solar power to make hydrogen, then the Sun is your source.

Plutonium fusion--fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create titanic amounts of energy.... I hope... :D
Unfortunately, that wouldn't work. To explain why, I'd have to give you a crash course in nuclear chemistry. I'll spare you the torture of an ad-hoc science lesson, but you may want to look up the concept of "binding energy per nucleon". A nuclear reaction will release energy if the "binding energy per nucleon" is higher for the products than for the reactants.

"Binding energy per nucleon" starts off pretty low for hydrogen and goes up with increasing atomic number. It gets the highest for iron, after which it declines steadily for larger nuclei. That's why you can get energy from both fission and fusion: In fission, uranium splits into nuclei that have higher binding energies than uranium, thus releasing energy. In fusion, hydrogen combines into nuclei that have higher binding energies, thus releasing energy.

The eastern bloc is intrested in alternetive energy for strengthining the state defense systems, oil is masses, alternitive energy could be good to strengthen state.
This is not a roleplay forum. This is discussion of real life.

...

There are two ideas (besides fusion) that I want to mention here (for no particular reasons).

The first is having orbital solar power satellites collect solar energy and send it down to a ground receiver station in the form of a microwave (or other energy) beam. Unfortunately, as cool as it sounds, I don't know how feasible this is.

The second idea: There are, apparently, large quantities of natural gases at the bottom of the ocean in a solid-phase-form called a "gas hydrate". (Again, I'll spare everyone the ad-hoc science course.) If you could mine them, you could get natural gas that way. It's still burning fossil fuels, but it gives us more time to find more permanent solutions.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

I disagree, A billion is a million million, and thats the way it should be.
You...you think that the imperial system is superior to the metric system? What are you on?

The best way would be to stop looking for alternate ways of wasting energy, and try to do with less. We aslo need to research ways to use energy more efficiently.

A billion is a thousand million and anyone who disagrees should be guillotined.

First, let's distinguish between an energy source and an energy carrier.

Hydrogen is not usually found in nature, so it's not an energy source. You can make hydrogen gas from water by electrolysis, but that requires that you get energy from somewhere else to hydrolyze the water. Why would you do such a thing? Well, maybe you can use the hydrogen in some place where you can't use the direct source. For example, you don't want to have nuclear-powered cars, but you want to use nuclear energy as your source. So, you use nuclear energy to make hydrogen-from-water, and then use the hydrogen in the cars. Thus, hydrogen is, at best, an energy carrier, NOT an energy source. How efficient such a thing would be is a separate question, which I won't try to answer, here.
I know, I know. Except, as I mentioned, we can burn vegetable matter and methanol to obtain hydrogen, which has very few environmental impacts. However, you are right, hydrogen fuel is really more of an energy carrier than an energy source. But I believe that nuclear fission is good source of energy as long as it's done correctly,and that we could use the energy form nuclear power plants to get the needed electricity. It's safer in the long run than oil and coal, at least. Though we could also go to more natural forms of power, such as wind power and hydroelectric dams, though the latter can actually have very bad impacts, just not on a global scale like fossil fuel burning is doing.

Hydrogen fuel cells might be one of the easiest to make in the near future. However, they are currently impractical for cars. If a car is to go 300mi between refueling, which is the industry standard, then the hydrogen is to be placed under 10,000lbs of pressure per square inch. Even then, the tank would be three times as big as a regular tank of gas.
Much closer, however, are refrigorator-sized fuel cells that can be placed in a basement, and powered by a tank of hydrogen underground. I have even heard of a concept where it can be replenished using solar panels woven into roof shingles, and they are neither ostentatious nor hard to work with. Anyhow, in time, I expect that more technology in this field will develope. Hydrogen fuel cells are starting to creep into the markets now, and by sometime next year, NEC plans to have a fuel cell powered laptop out there.

I prefer ethonal and methonal

ethonal from corn, once you have corn, its cheap. I live in Iowa, a state in the midwest of the USA, and the gas that is mixed with ethonal is cheaper then normal gas, we also have cars that run off 80-90% ethonal.

The NASCAR even uses alchol as well, not sure on which form, they have been doing it for years. Though the oil tyrants don't want it to catch on, they lose their riches that way.

Hate to burst this bubble, but ethanol is currently a hugely expensive and inefficient source of fuel. Because farming is so mechanized in the U.S. and because distilling and refining corn into ethanol is energy intensive, it currently requires 1.25 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of corn ethanol. The reason it's cheaper is because there are subsidies paid to the farmers who produce it by the federal gov't because it theoretically is supposed to wean America off foreign oil. Currently, it's a 25% markup on foreign oil. The money you save at the pump comes out of your taxes.

There is a new enzymatic process in development to convert all the cellulose in corn to ethanol (instead of just the sugars). Cellulosic ethanol would be the way to go and could cost as little as $0.50 a gallon to produce. And it would not require changing the current vehicle fleet.

DoE study available at: http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/4898.pdf

How about biodiesel?

It can run a regular car, burns clean and is made from old fry grease or other vegatable oils. Hemp plants could be grown to make a lot of biodiesel. Combined with improved efficiency, could really reduce our dependency on oil.

BTW, Hawaii already produces a lot of it's own biodiesel to offset thier expensive guel costs and reduce pollution.

Hate to burst this bubble, but ethanol is currently a hugely expensive and inefficient source of fuel. Because farming is so mechanized in the U.S. and because distilling and refining corn into ethanol is energy intensive, it currently requires 1.25 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of corn ethanol. The reason it's cheaper is because there are subsidies paid to the farmers who produce it by the federal gov't because it theoretically is supposed to wean America off foreign oil. Currently, it's a 25% markup on foreign oil. The money you save at the pump comes out of your taxes.

There is a new enzymatic process in development to convert all the cellulose in corn to ethanol (instead of just the sugars). Cellulosic ethanol would be the way to go and could cost as little as $0.50 a gallon to produce. And it would not require changing the current vehicle fleet.

DoE study available at: http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/4898.pdf


"Ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil because it can be produced domestically. Today, ethanol reduces the demand for gasoline and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) imports by 98,000 barrels per day. A 98,000 barrel/day replacement of imported MTBE would represent a $1.1 billion reduction to our annual trade deficit. In addition, because the petroleum refining industry is running near capacity, the ethanol industry helps extend our petroleum supply, thereby helping moderate fuel costs to consumers.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel that is responsible for more than 40,000 jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in increased household income annually. And the ethanol industry directly and indirectly adds more that $6 billion to the American economy each year. Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline.

Air pollution can also be reduced by using ethanol. Ethanol is low in reactivity and high in oxygen content, making it an effective tool in reducing ozone pollution. It is also a safe replacement for toxic octane enhancers in gasoline such as benzene, toluene, and xylene."

"

Ethanol can be produced from any biological feedstocks that contain appreciable amounts of sugar or materials that can be converted into sugar such as starch or cellulose. Sugar beets and sugar cane are examples of feedstocks that contain sugar. Corn contains starch that can relatively easily be converted into sugar. A significant percentage of trees and grasses are made up of cellulose, which can also be converted to sugar, although with more difficulty than required to convert starch.

The ethanol production process starts by grinding up the feedstock so it is more easily and quickly processed in the following steps. Once ground up, the sugar is either dissolved out of the material or the starch or cellulose is converted into sugar. The sugar is then fed to microbes that use it for food, producing ethanol and carbon dioxide in the process. A final step purifies the ethanol to the desired concentration.

Ethanol is also made from a wet-milling process. Many larger ethanol producers use this process, which also yields products such as high-fructose corn sweetener."

from your website

There is a way to get cheap hydrogen in the near future. There are bacteria that break down ordinary plant matter into pure hydrogen, plus other stuff that might be helpful. Just feed plants to bugs and gather the useful, gassy byproducts.

For all you physicists, what about 'squeezed vacuum'?

The basic idea is this, from what I gather (Note: I have no qualifications in this field, feel free to slaughter my points...) is that the Big bang happened, right. And the universe 'expanded'*. As it expanded, all the energy created in the Big Bang is spread out more and more, and the universe cools, hence why it is only fractionally above 0K at the present time. As energy cannot be lost, (The laws of Thermodynamics) the universe will always be hotter than absolute zero.(0K) So basically, there's a ton of energy in the universe, very spread out. But if you squeezed this vacuum, tyhe energy would be all in one place, and you would have unlimited** energy to use, causing no ahrm to the enviroment. All that is needed is a little energy to start the process.

Hopw about it? If anyone knows more about it than me (not hard), then please explain it better.

*Let's not debate what that word means in this context here, please?
**Okay, so not unlimited. But very close. I can't see humanity ever using up all of the energy in the universe.

Okay, first you get a bunch of pigs and put 'em in the basement. Then you build a methane processing plant and run your generators that power your home off the methane. Next you build a dome-shaped cage in your back yard to settle local grudges in. Hey, it worked in Mad Max - Beyond Thunder Dome. Too bad the movie sucked so much.

Okay, now that I've got the silliness out of the way.

First thing, like Nova Eccia said, we have to reduce our consumption of energy. This could be done in part through better building technology. Homes built subterannean or even semi-subterranean will be a great savings in home heating and cooling costs. If someone could develope (and think it is being worked on) a better method of storage then photovoltaics could be extremely useful. Especially if we could get the entire initial costs of the entire system down. A fully functional system costs tens of thousands of dollars and relies on nasty batteries for energy storage. What happens when the batteries can't be recharged? Massive waste. But solar has tremendous potential if there were just a few more advances regardless of what the naysayers naysay. Wind power could be, and already is becoming, of tremendous use as an alternative to fossil fuels.

Nuclear is dangerous due to the radioactive waste produced as well as the current terroristic climate we live in. I'm amazed that terrorist group form Chechney (probably misspelled that) hasn't blown up one of the plants in Russia yet, or a plant in Europe or the U.S. hasn't been sabatoged yet. Again, take cake of the potential dangers to the environment and the people that could be effected by a nuclear plant going meltdown and we'll talk.

Geothermal? Don't know a lot about it, but sounds like it could be a great potential source. Same thing for biomass, Ethanol, hydrogen fule cells, and other tech that appears to be on the verge of becoming breakout technologies. If we could just convince the petroleum industry that it's in its own best interest to help instead of hinder these technologies we could see huge changes in the next decade or two - if we survive that long.

In the end, there isn't a single magic bullet answer to the worlds energy problems. But there is one obvious point. We can not keep going the way we are. Fossil fuels are on the way out. They are filthy and simply will not be sustainable in the long run, and by long run I'm talking about our lifetime. But it can't just be the industrialized world that implements these technologies. Evolving industrial nations and the Third World have to be brought along with this revolution or it will not work. Which means less concern over profit and more concern with the greater good. I'm afraid to say I'm pretty dubious about the 1% realizing this and changing their mindset of MINE! though. I hope, I really really hope, I'm wrong about this.

My solution to the power issue: Anti-Matter.
We've already created it, we just need to harness it. It's been theorized that 1 gram would yield enough energy to power New York city for a week. We just need a bunch of particle accelerators to make the stuff.

I've read of that too. I heard they use a particle accelerator to create it. However we only managed to create a few atoms of them. Plus it takes more energy to create them than to use them.

Most likely Hydrogen fuelling would be the way to the future. If we can only find a more effecient way of making them.


Trying to think outside the box here.
But How about Garbage incineration? :)
Or Giant Solar panels in Space? Or in Deserts?
Make every gym a power station? And have more fat camps. No more fat people, and electricity!

Yup, I agree. We should take the umemployed/homeless (or alternately, everybody on the Atkins diet) and give them room and board in exchange for spending 8 hours on a stationary bicycle every day. Get a bookie and run a gambling ring where everyone bases their bets on who cycles farthest, and use the money to support the whole deal. Better yet, convince Lance Armstrong to quit his day job.

I was Wondering if anyone had any Ideas for an alternate means of making energy. Seeing as our oil crisis is going nowhere.


Pebble Bed (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html) Nuclear Reactors (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Pebble+Bed+Nuclear+Reactor%22). Both the South Africans and the Chinese have got these things in the 'feasability' stage (meaning, they are actually using scaled down versions of them). They are walk-away safe (theoretically impossible to melt-down, one of the tests the chinese government required was for them to turn off all the safety mechanisms and let the thing run wild for a week, nothing bad came of it). And, most importantly, they can be built to scale (the chinese plan is to build them suited for ~10000 people's power needs, at that size they could plop them into just about anywhere they are needed). They are also very clean and efficient, and fairly cheap to build/maintain. These should be being built by American companies yesterday, but unfortunately aren't, because of the stigmata around here to anything 'nukular'.

Anything into (http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil/)Oil (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Anything+into+Oil). A new procedure developped by Conagra Foods (owned by Warren Buffet) that can turn a whole schpiel of things into various useable products, including various Oils (yes, some that can run your car). On top of it, the feedstocks are what would be generally considered garbage. Turkey offal, from an industrial turkey processing plant is the primary feedstock currently. They have plans to also use all kinds of industrial and human waste going forward. They can produce oil at a competitive price with some drilling companies (They produce at a cost of around $15 a barrel, which is comparable to both Texas $15 and Alaska $12 drilling operations. It is not competative with Saudi Arabia $7 or Iraq $4, but they believe they can scale the operation to a point where they can get it in the $8 range.) The bonus is that even though it would still be fossil fuels being burned, it would be using carbons that are already in the carbon cycle, as opposed to sucking up more carbon from the earth to add to the carbon cycle.

Solar Power (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/solar.asp) From Space (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Space+Solar+Power+Microwave). This is fairly cool, and much cleaner than just about anything else (once efficiency problems and transmission problems are worked out). Basically, you sit a big set of solar panels up in orbit (way up, preferrably GeoSyncronous) have them collect solar power (which is more abundant in space, and doesn't cary with it the earth bound problems of removing heat from (and possibly really badly effecting) the environment, or taking up gobs of wildlife land) and beam it back down to a power station on earth using microwaves or something similar. Very effective and very cool. But will require regular privately funded forays into space and deep into space on the cheap. Doable in the next decade or two.

Helium 3 Fusion (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html) from the Moon (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Helium+3+Moon+Mining). This is clean, abundant, and would not cause any environmental problems. It is not however cheap. It would be MUCH cheaper with privately funded space travel, but even a trip to the moon at the current NASA prices would net a profit in the amount of fuel being brought back.

I see them needing funding and research in the order I presented them. The first is something that we should have been putting in place 10 years ago, and funding/research/planning should be put in place to reflect the urgency of it now. The Oil production is something that should be being looked at now, especially in light of all the middle east crap going on. We should be looking at doing the space solar within the next decade, and doing the fusion moon mining within the next 2 or 3. After all of that, we could have an entire planet powered and run by clean, safe, and cheap power even if we doubled the population.

Between the hot gases we could trap from this forum and send through an MHD generator, or the flatulence created by the users of this forum we could trap and burn as natural gas, I have solved the energy crisis.

An atom with the atomic mass of twice that of plutonium (2 plut atoms fused) would break up quickly. This is because it would be highly unstable and it would give off large amounts of energy in splitting. This implies that is took large amounts of energy to make it form.

The laws of physics: brutally stomping my plans for quick and easy energy production since 1992.
Also I think fusing nucleii heavier than iron would actually use up more energy than it emits.