NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I've placed a poll listed the most popular energy sources. Which one do you favor, or do youy have an idea for something new?
I personally am pretty excited about biodeisel.

where is this poll at?

Apparently Tesla had the technology to draw energy directly out of the air and even transmit it wirelessly. Thats the technology I want.

What's this biodiesel stuff?

What's this biodiesel stuff?
Its deisel made from cooking oil, clean, efficient, and it makes your truck smell like french fries!

Its deisel made from cooking oil, clean, efficient, and it makes your truck smell like french fries!
Nice.... I like it...... but is it efficient on a large scale?

What's this biodiesel stuff?
Diesel fuel made from used vegetable oils.

I'm partial to Propane.

Nice.... I like it...... but is it efficient on a large scale? From what I've read about it, it seems to be WAY easier than refining oil. In fact, you can do it safely in your own garage!

From what I've read about it, it seems to be WAY easier than refining oil. In fact, you can do it safely in your own garage!
But we can't all have powerplants in our garage can we?

Willie Nelson has started a company that makes a 80% diesel, 20% biodiesel mix, and he's starting up fueling stations around the midwest! I've even heard that it gives better gas mileage, and more power than regular diesel, and its better for your engine!

Nuclear fission and Nuclear fusion are best.

That, and orbital solar power satellites.

I have a better idea. Let's use thorium breeder reactors to produce electricity, and use thermal depolymerization to generate oil and gas. Prices for energy will go up, but it will still be cheaper than other alternative energy sources. It will also buy us more time to develop better energy sources and more efficient technologies.

But we can't all have powerplants in our garage can we?
Actually, the machine I saw was about half the size of a small one car garage, and made enough diesel to last indefinately, and it costs about 60 cents U.S. to make!

I'm gonna have to go with nuclear fission, simply because - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think we've figured out how to sustain nuclear fusion and use the energy from it yet.

I've gotta go with biodiesel. it's not that hard, you can get the left-over oil from fast food restaurants because they're willing to give it away so that they don't have to pay to have it taken away. Apparently it's easy enough that my friend is going to convert a diesel car to run on vegetable oil for her senior project. it seems to be good for all sides.

Vacuum energy. Draw energy from the matterless interatomic gaps. Enormous amounts of it everywhere you look.

Ford desinged a car in the 50's that took it's energy from a small nuclear reactor mounted on the back of the car. It never came on sale though because the lid shields were too heavy and you can just imagine what would've happened if many of those cars had exploded in a huge accident.

Vacuum energy. Draw energy from the matterless interatomic gaps. Enormous amounts of it everywhere you look.

Heh, good ole' Zero-Point Energy...

Me, I likes solar. Simply because it'd be dead useful here in 'Oz.

We definitely need to get away from oil though...

I'm working on a power source from sugarcane

Collect farts and use the methane for energy:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&IDX=GB2289222

I'm working on a power source from sugarcane
They beat you to it. It's called rum. Although after a few glasses one grows less energetic...

Vacuum energy. Draw energy from the matterless interatomic gaps. Enormous amounts of it everywhere you look.

Is this what Teslas work was based on?

Is this what Teslas work was based on?
No. Tesla worked before quantum mechanics. This is mostly theoretical and certainly impossible to use currently. Still, it would be an amazing development if we can get to it -- or maybe not. Imagine all that energy available to everybody, we'd probably end up roasting the planet.

Fusion engine!!!

And huge mechs to walk around in.... :)

They beat you to it. It's called rum. Although after a few glasses one grows less energetic...
? Please explain...

? Please explain...
Drink some and you'll see what I mean.

Vacuum energy. Draw energy from the matterless interatomic gaps. Enormous amounts of it everywhere you look.
I'm not sure it's enormous ammounts. An essay I read said you'd need collectors several tens of kilometers accross to light up one standard lightbulb.

? Please explain...

erm u get drunk!!!!!

I'm not sure it's enormous ammounts. An essay I read said you'd need collectors several tens of kilometers accross to light up one standard lightbulb.
Isn't that for interstellar hydrogen?

It's theorized that there's enough Zero Point Energy in a volume the size of a cup of coffee to boil away all oceans on Earth. However, using this energy is tremendously difficult and may be impossible.

Antimatter!!! :)

Isn't that for interstellar hydrogen?

It's theorized that there's enough Zero Point Energy in a volume the size of a cup of coffee to boil away all oceans on Earth. However, using this energy is tremendously difficult and may be impossible.
Nope it was for ZPE. It was a criticism of Targ and Puthoff's pseudoscientific research. You may recognize the names if you're into pseudoscience. They got their start studying "psychic" phenomena, then conned some people into giving them money to study ZPE. I think that what the writer was getting at is that currently you can only demonstrate zero point energy by putting very thin metal plates very close together and having the particle/antiparticle pairs slam them together because there's no room between the plates to accomodate the particles. If you used such a system to generate energy you'd need plates the size of cities.

Nope it was for ZPE. It was a criticism of Targ and Puthoff's pseudoscientific research. You may recognize the names if you're into pseudoscience. They got their start studying "psychic" phenomena, then conned some people into giving them money to study ZPE. I think that what the writer was getting at is that currently you can only demonstrate zero point energy by putting very thin metal plates very close together and having the particle/antiparticle pairs slam them together because there's no room between the plates to accomodate the particles. If you used such a system to generate energy you'd need plates the size of cities.
Oh, yeah. Those were the guys developing "Remote Viewing" and such for the US government. Can't blame them, everybody was into that at the time. Now it's energy.

Anyway, I was not aware of their research into ZPE. As far as I know, only a few experiments suggest (not prove) the existence of ZPE, and no serious physicist has offered any way to extract any of it beyond the hypothetical stage.

EDIT: The plates thing. Yes, that's one of the experiments that suggest there may be ZPE at work and, as you say, it would be unfeasible to use as energy source. Beyond that things look very murky.

I've heard hydrogen gives out five more times as much energy than some foosil fuels.

I've heard hydrogen gives out five more times as much energy than some foosil fuels.
Problem is you don't find hydrogen just floating around. It's bound to other atoms and it's a bitch to free it up. Costs alot of energy to take it out of water, while oil just comes out of the ground.

Problem is you don't find hydrogen just floating around. It's bound to other atoms and it's a bitch to free it up. Costs alot of energy to take it out of water, while oil just comes out of the ground.
Damn that Honda advert making everything look so bloody simple *screams at Tv* But it is true that the only emmisions are pure water though, is it?

Its deisel made from cooking oil, clean, efficient, and it makes your truck smell like french fries!

The belief that bio-diesel is "clean" is false.... While it has lower particulate emission, and less CO/CO2 emitions; it's NOx emissions are actually higher than petroleum derived "diesel" fuel-oil (and NOx is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2... more than 3 times as potent at that)... Depending on dervation in processing; it can be slightly cleaner than petroleum diesel fuel-oils.... But is far from "clean"...

Hydrogen-Hybrid and Hydrogen Fuel Cell's are actually clean...

yeh everybody should use vegetable oil, renewable and found in your local supermarket!

go H2!


We just need to solve the energy crisis to make enough of it :eek:

Thermal Depolymeriztion could be the answer.

Check it out:

http://www.kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml

You all smell funny. Die! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Thermal Depolymeriztion could be the answer.

Check it out:

http://www.kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml
Our saviour, how cool but then the pollution problem would remain :headbang:And think of the turkies! :(

lets go nuclear!

The flesh of man is all that the Zombie States require.

Gerbils, millions and millions of gerbils, and hampsters, on wheels.

Nuclear

You all smell funny. Die! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Stop spamming; kthnxbai.

Damn that Honda advert making everything look so bloody simple *screams at Tv* But it is true that the only emmisions are pure water though, is it?
yep, but if the plant that produced the electricity that was used to make the hydrogen burns coal the environment is actually more fucked than if you just burned gasoline in your car.

I voted gasoline mainly because I happened to be listening to "Fuel" by Metallica at the time, but my money's on nuclear power: clean, cheap, reliable. It's the way of the future.

I have a better idea. I said it before and I'll say it again.

Hobos.

yep, but if the plant that produced the electricity that was used to make the hydrogen burns coal the environment is actually more fucked than if you just burned gasoline in your car.
Well not all areas burn coal. Were I live all our power is hydro electric so there would only be increased water shortages(caused by lack of govt planning). Most gas and deisel engines can be modified to burn hydrogen and gas/deisel.

I have a better idea. I said it before and I'll say it again.

Hobos.


as well as teh gheys

Nuclear (Properly run), Geothermal or Solar
Nuclear is the best so far, if properly handled, but solar and geothermal have some real potential

Anti-matter, from a purely theoretical and technical sense, is the best possible since it has 100% efficiency.

Right now, either (Bio)Diesel or Natural Gas. When that comes unavailable, probably some kind of hybrid-engine.
When people actually have to think they usually come up with some pretty nifty ideas. I'm looking forward to all that new technology :D

What about Hybrid cars? I think they're a brilliant idea.

Right now, either (Bio)Diesel or Natural Gas. When that comes unavailable, probably some kind of hybrid-engine.
When people actually have to think they usually come up with some pretty nifty ideas. I'm looking forward to all that new technology :D

hybrids are a good idea; as they increase efficiency regardless of the type of combustion engine used.... So; I think it should be first (and is; for that matter)....

Anti-matter, from a purely theoretical and technical sense, is the best possible since it has 100% efficiency.

The only problem is the extreme cost of manufacturing AM.

Hydrogen is nice and clean, but it is a secondary "storage" energy (think battery) you have to expend energy to produce it and storing it is a pain and it just moves the pollution elseware (coal fired power plant)

Propane is derived from oil and curently cost more than gas for the same energy content

the greenies won't let the US build anymore hydro dams so were are pretty much stuck with coal and nuclear (solar is just too expensive and the panels have a short life span before they would have to be replaced and you are stuck with what to do for power at night)

Hydrogen is nice and clean, but it is a secondary "storage" energy (think battery) you have to expend energy to produce it and storing it is a pain and it just moves the pollution elseware (coal fired power plant)

Who said power-plants had to be coal-fired?

I Think ploor is right, i mean what are MOST powerplants that your energy comes from? either coal, oil, or petrol. All Very Poluting.

The trouble is that different fuels or methods of harvesting energy all have their pros and cons. Solar energy is free, clean and easy to install, but the panels are short lived chemical soups that cannot be recycled, and cloudy days are also a problem. Fossil and hydrocarbon fuels create greenhouse gases, and some of these gases are carcinogenic, but they are easy to make, use, and we have a lot of existing technology that runs on the stuff. Wind is great, unless you live in an urban area or it's not windy. Nuclear is cheap, a lot ofthe processes are clean, but small mistakes can lead to disasters.

What would be best would be for each building or vehicle to have several energy harvesting systems that would work best for their environment and needs.

I voted for solar, but Solar, Electromagnetic, hydrogen...anything renewable

Nice.... I like it...... but is it efficient on a large scale?
Fortum Corporation is planning to start adding biodiesel to normal fossil diesel to guess what: improve quality.

But, the entire fuel economy of Europe there is can't be run by biodiesel, because there isn't simply enough arable land in Europe. Only about 5% of the total consumption could be covered with agriculture. The volume of hydrocarbon you'd need is simply so large.

I Think ploor is right, i mean what are MOST powerplants that your energy comes from? either coal, oil, or petrol. All Very Poluting.

My local power-grid is attached to the Surrey Nuclear Power Station (Surry County, Virginia, on the James accross the river from Jamestown Historic Settlement), the North Anna Nuclear Power Station (Louisa County, Virginia); and the Lake Gaston Hydroelectric Station (Thelma , North Carolina)....

Drink some and you'll see what I mean.
Gotta wait a few years...

Burn coal, but part of your electricity bill should contribute to growing forrests to absorb the released CO2. Or you could capture the CO2 at the power plant and pump it underground. Whatever is cheaper. Since transporting coal is a significant cost, Nuclear power will probably be more economical in places without easilly accessable coal supplies. Coal and uranium will last a long time and they will definately last us until after the earth's population peaks. I imagine better power sources will be developed in the future, but even if they aren't we can switch to renewable energy sources. The world will be a lot richer in a generation's time and the switch to more expensive renewable energy will be easier to make.

go H2!


We just need to solve the energy crisis to make enough of it :eek:
The symbol for hydrogen is just H not H2, that would mean two hydrogen atoms together.

I voted for solar, but Solar, Electromagnetic, hydrogen...anything renewable
I'm not sure but I don't think hydrogen is renewable

Anti-matter, from a purely theoretical and technical sense, is the best possible since it has 100% efficiency.

( Taken fron the C.E.R.N. website)
Can we hope to use antimatter as a source of energy? Do you feel antimatter could power vehicles in the future, or would it just be used for major power sources?
There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy "source". Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature: we have to make every particle at the expense of much more energy than it can give back during annihilation.

You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

Petrol - Very efficient and cheap, but we have to face the facts and admit that petrol is doing an awful lot of damage to the atmosphere, is supplied by some rather dubious Arabic dictatorships and its use requires the substance used to make such important things as plastic and paints to be burnt in massive quantities.

Solar Power - Too slow in most climates and erratic. Probably wont work very well at all in countried like mine (Britain) most of the time.

Rechargable Batteries - Probably the best system. Electric cars are becoming fairly cheap and the power supply is certainly the most efficient of the "renewable" options which I think are our only choice. They would require a national network of recharging points, but electricity is easy to supply than oil and much less dangerous and it wouldnt require much investment. The main problem is that electric powered cars actually dont create their own energy from fuel, but have it transported to them and stored. Therefore you still have to generate the energy elsewhere, and that requires a nuclear grid (fossil fuels arent the answer - see petrol entry, and renewables are too inefficient, erratic and hugely expensive).

Biodeisel - Better than petrol, as it doesnt pollute so much and is renewable. It still pollutes, however and growing the quantities required will force major land clearance programs, most likely in S American nations where the general policy is to cut down rainforest. Therefore overall probably worse than oil, environmentally and the 1st world nations will still be dependant on other nations as they can grow it cheaper and have more empty land.

Electromagnetic Tracks - I assume you mean the maglev trains. Well, it's an idea. For a train network. Not really for cars.

Hydrogen (I assume fuel cells) - Nah. They are really inefficient because you need to get the hydrogen from electrolysis of water which requires huge amount of energy (more than you get out of it). It would be much more efficient and safer to introduce an electric car system as discussed above.

Propane - This is just a different type of hydrocarbon. Better than petrol environmentally, but fundamentally there is little difference.

been somewhat erratically following this thread for a while...

anyways, i feel we really need to look into renewables, but that alone wont solve problems. I dont think any one thing will solve the problems, i think it has to be looked at as a complex issue, with many problems, and many different parts to the 'solution'

we need more efficient vehicles, as well as housing and industry. I feel having decentralized power would help somewhat.
use passive solar design, sustainable housing principles, etc, so that less energy is needed to run a household. more efficient appliances, solar panels, solar water heaters, on-demand water heaters, radiant floor heat, etc., would all serve to further lessen the grid-requirements of said household.

I really think more progress should be made for public transportation and bicycle/pedestrian friendly cities/areas. also, limiting urban sprawl will help to cut down on the distance traveled, etc.

and solar may not be practical right now, or for all climates, but its improving, and has already improved greatly over the past couple decades. plus, the more interest in it, the more research and development will go on, and the more affordable it will become.

already, i think solar is almost a no-brainer if its doable in your climate, it will pay for itself long-term, and as far as i know, needs little maintainance, and is completely non-polluting. the main problem seems to be finding an effective/efficient way to store energy for nightime use.

also, does anyone know much about using methane digesters to produce natural gas? ive heard its fairly easy to convert a normal gasoline-combustion engine to be able to use natural gas, and this could be another possible source of future energy?

I thought we all agreed in another thread that homosexual sex would be the ultimate power source. :p

For large scale energy production, nothing beats the nuclear power. Eco friendly or not, it is the only truly efficient way to satisfy the energy needs of modern society.

The most eco-friendly power sources would be solar, wind, tide and geothermal power. But they are all problematic, each in their own way.

Solar power certainly has future. I would suggest developing small-scale solar batteries that could supply power for individual houses- that could sell well with the countryside people who want independence and no electricity bill. For industrial needs, however, it isn't efficient and reliable enough.

I like the biodiesel idea as a replacement for petrol as car fuel. Making McDonalds a major fuel producer is an interesting way to finally put them to good use ;) The smell of french fries or falafel sounds like an acceptable pollution to me.

Wind power is good, but unreliable and takes up huge spaces that could have been put to better use. Which also makes it expensive because land use costs. There's a limit to how many countries can afford it and for how long.

Geothermal power (drilling a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep shaft in the ground and using the heat of the Earth's deeper layers to generate power) is an interesting option, but costly to implement and its full environmental effects are not yet explored.

Sea tide based generators are sort of like the wind and the solar- good, but underpowered and take up lots of coastal space.

Hydrogen- is not a power source at all. Hydrogen itself has to be produced by using energy. Could be an alternative fuel source in a way. It's not as clean as people think it is though: production of hydrogen is highly polluting, so instead of eliminating pollution, we simply relocate it.

There is no possibility to use antimatter as energy "source". Unlike solar energy, coal or oil, antimatter does not occur in nature

Not strictly true, antimatter occurs in solar flares, there's no way of collecting it though. also at CERN, the antimatter they make is from colliding single atoms, which as you might expect don't yield much.

Antimatter also occurs in wormholes, but nobody has actually found one of them yet.

Gotta wait a few years...
No prob. I'll drink it for you...

¡Salú! :)

At the moment Petrol (gas) is still the best as it is the cheapest and therefore thats what i want in my car!

However for the future, hydrogen would be best, however atm it is too expensive and unreliable to replace the IC engine.

I'm not sure but I don't think hydrogen is renewable
Hydrogen is an element, therefore it never dissapears. It simply combines itself with oxygen to form water again and rains down. You then go to a river or the sea and pick it up again.

However, as has been said in this thread before, you need energy to break down water into oxygen and hydrogen; and where this energy comes certainly is not a renewable source of energy. Even if you use the Sun or wind (which is driven by the Sun), it will run out one day.

EDIT: And, oh yeah... ¡salú!

Hydrogen is an element, therefore it never dissapears. It simply combines itself with oxygen to form water again and rains down. You then go to a river or the sea and pick it up again.

However, as has been said in this thread before, you need energy to break down water into oxygen and hydrogen; and where this energy comes certainly is not a renewable source of energy. Even if you use the Sun or wind (which is driven by the Sun), it will run out one day.

wait, you're saying that the sun as an energy source will run out one day? The earth won't even exist that day! but you do have a good point there, using solar or wind power to create hydrogen power.

Does anyone know how much energy it requires to complete the process? A lot? Not much? Too much to be effective even with solar power?

Hydrogen requires ridiculous amounts of energy to be created, you gotta split water!

But equally Hydrogen gives out a lot of energy when burnt, probs equal or greater then the amount of energy required to make it (so you could have a recirculating system; water from combustion is split and made into hydrogen again by the energy produced from the combustion), and certainly much more than a petrol IC engine.

For example, BMW have recently built their own hydrogen powered car which i believe is a modified 4L V8. The petrol car did around 160mph, the hydrogen powered car (with the same engine, just significantly modified to run on hydrogen) did over 200mph. Hydrogen is much more powerful than petrol, and importantly when it burns, it burns 100% and thus is cleaner, also improving its efficiency ratio.

Hydrogen is the way forward as it is the only viable solution.

wait, you're saying that the sun as an energy source will run out one day? The earth won't even exist that day! but you do have a good point there, using solar or wind power to create hydrogen power.

My point is nothing lasts forever. Sure, maybe long enough to make it just the same for us, but not forever. And there may be a time when not even all of the Sun's output is enough to cover our needs.

Does anyone know how much energy it requires to complete the process? A lot? Not much? Too much to be effective even with solar power?
According to Tekania on this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9206126&postcount=164
we can currently recover only a bit more of 25% of the energy we put in to produce hydrogen. Of course, as technology progresses it may go up, but I doubt it will ever get to be much higher than 50%.

Hydrogen requires ridiculous amounts of energy to be created, you gotta split water!

But equally Hydrogen gives out a lot of energy when burnt, probs equal or greater then the amount of energy required to make it (so you could have a recirculating system; water from combustion is split and made into hydrogen again by the energy produced from the combustion), and certainly much more than a petrol IC engine.

For example, BMW have recently built their own hydrogen powered car which i believe is a modified 4L V8. The petrol car did around 160mph, the hydrogen powered car (with the same engine, just significantly modified to run on hydrogen) did over 200mph. Hydrogen is much more powerful than petrol, and importantly when it burns, it burns 100% and thus is cleaner, also improving its efficiency ratio.

Hydrogen is the way forward as it is the only viable solution.

ah true, once you have enough hydrogen energy, it could self-sustain indefinately. At first I was against hydrogen powered cars etc, but now I think there may be hope!

ah true, once you have enough hydrogen energy, it could self-sustain indefinately. At first I was against hydrogen powered cars etc, but now I think there may be hope!
No, it won't self-sustain indefinetely. That's impossible to do with any source of energy.

Apparently Tesla had the technology to draw energy directly out of the air and even transmit it wirelessly. Thats the technology I want.
he was an odd though brilliant person. why didn't they allow him to continue the research though? is there still designs existant of his plans?

stop splitting hairs its really annoying and pointless. You knew what he meant, you do not need to flex your interllectual muscle over such a small thing like that. Keep it in your head and accept that you may know more than somebody else, or word it so that your statement is informative rather than big headed. Thanks.