NationStates Jolt Archive

In the next 50 years, it is very likely that we will run out of petroleum, also because of increase of demand from the new economical giants.

So, we need to switch to other power sources. What do you think? What are the best options?

Note: I leave out nuclear fusion (cold or hot) because it is still underdeveloped.

Added: also hydrogen isn't a SOURCE, it is just a VECTOR of energy. Hydrogen (H2) isn't found in nature: you need to extract it from other compounds (such as water or hydrocarbides), and this TAKES energy.

Nuclear, tidal, wind, solar, geothermal, and coal. More than enough to meet all of our power needs and a significant amount of our heating needs with present technology to say nothing of future developments. Even better, these sources are able to be produced domestically and have a wide range, enabling them to be deployed in almost all parts of the country. Biomass could be a major source of natural gas for heating and power needs, and could also supply liquid fuels once the technology for producing them from non-food crops is mature. All in all, there are plenty of alternative sources to meet and expand upon our needs in to the future.

Also, efficiency will be key; in fact, significantly more of our power demand has been met by efficiency and conservation in the past 20 years than has been met by new construction of power plants. And, of course, there are the exotic sources of power like nanotechnology and fuel cells, but they're still not quite ready to be scaled to the level needed for commercial power generation.

Trash (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). *nods emphatically*

Other than that, I'm partial to nuclear myself, with all that other stuff thrown in there.

tidal

You know, tides and dams leave me doubtful. Mostly because of the heavy impact on shores and living ecosystems.



Also, efficiency will be key; in fact, significantly more of our power demand has been met by efficiency and conservation in the past 20 years than has been met by new construction of power plants.

Seconded.


And, of course, there are the exotic sources of power like nanotechnology and fuel cells, but they're still not quite ready to be scaled to the level needed for commercial power generation.

I doubt that nanotech and fuel cells can be classified as sources. Fuel cells, while perfectly working (the Germans have submarines running of fuel cells!), need H2, hence my OP. Nanotech...???

Trash. *nods emphatically*

Actually, yeah. Garbage produces a lot of biogas as well as all those plastics and other non-biodegradable wastes that can be recycled in to new products. I mean, why let millions of tons of good plastic and metal just sit there and go to waste?

I think Fission's going to be the big one. Solar panels aren't viable, being both too delicate and too inefficient. Geothermal and Hydro are great where they can be implemented, but that's in only specific areas. Coal, even clean Coal, is too polluting; we need to stop using it.

You know, tides and dams leave me doubtful. Mostly because of the heavy impact on shores and living ecosystems.

Actually, dams can be upgraded to greatly reduce their environmental impact; I'd have to find the article, but apparently dams can be adjusted so that they allow as high as 99% of the fish to pass through unharmed, which is vital for populations to survive and reproduce. Excellent for wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

However, there are better sources than rivers. Tidal power comes with the advantage of not being fixed and operating on the tide rather than using built-up water pressure, so its environmental impact is quite small.



I doubt that nanotech and fuel cells can be classified as sources. Fuel cells, while perfectly working (the Germans have submarines running of fuel cells!), need H2, hence my OP. Nanotech...???

They're more of power alternatives or enhancements than true sources of energy, things like replacements and improvements for current methods.

However, there actually are fuel cell power plants; South Korea's building a fairly large one right now. And nanotech covers a wide variety of power sources that would use that scale to generate electricity; advanced photovoltaics, vastly more efficient appliances, nanoscale motors for powering devices, and so on.

Actually, yeah. Garbage produces a lot of biogas as well as all those plastics and other non-biodegradable wastes that can be recycled in to new products. I mean, why let millions of tons of good plastic and metal just sit there and go to waste?

Hmm....Cuz it smells bad?

Aunty Entity: We call it Underworld. That's where Bartertown gets its energy.
Max: What, oil? Natural gas?
Aunty Entity: Pigs.
Max: You mean pigs like those?
Aunty Entity: That's right.
Max: Bullshit!
Aunty Entity: No. Pig shit.
Max: What?
The Collector: Pig shit. The lights, the motors, the vehicles, all run by a high-powered gas called methane. And methane cometh from pig shit.

*nod*

Hmm....Cuz it smells bad?

Reprocess it and you won't know the difference. That's what we do with sewage already; that water coming out of your tap is nothing more than treated and recycled human waste.

What are we going to do without plastic?

What are we going to do without plastic?

Different question entirely. In fact, if we stop using fossil fuels for power, we'll have much more to use for plastics manufacture.

But even if we run out, most of the plastics we've got can be synthesized from other carbon-chain sources, such as plant oils. It just isn't as efficient or cheap as making them from petroleum.

I'm partial to geothermal meself, but then again I seemingly always pick geothermally active areas to live in.

Actually, dams can be upgraded to greatly reduce their environmental impact; I'd have to find the article, but apparently dams can be adjusted so that they allow as high as 99% of the fish to pass through unharmed, which is vital for populations to survive and reproduce. Excellent for wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest.


Nice, but I was thinking to problems like the silt issue of the High Aswan Dam. I expect the Three Gorges Dam to create similar problems.

But even if we run out, most of the plastics we've got can be synthesized from other carbon-chain sources, such as plant oils. It just isn't as efficient or cheap as making them from petroleum.

Italian chemistry major Montedison is going to begin shortly production of a new type of plastics: it is biodegradable (lab tests say that a spoon made with this plastics will undergo total biodegradation in 6 months), and it is made out of... MAIZE LEAVES!

In the next 50 years, it is very likely that we will run out of petroleum, also because of increase of demand from the new economical giants.

So, we need to switch to other power sources. What do you think? What are the best options?

I think fission will be one of the big ones, particularly for nations with large populations. I also expect to see a gradual maturation of tidal energy in the future, and movement of proposed large scale wind farms offshore. I think biofuels will become more important, but will remain a relatively minor piece of the pie, or perhaps another energy carrier (like hydrogen). I don't expect to see large scale coal developments in the western world without parallel implementations of carbon scrubbing/sequestration technology.

And of course there'll be the ever-greater focus on efficiency.

large scale wind farms offshore

A fun fact:
The Regione Sardegna (Sardinia) has begun building an offshore wind farm. A group of environmentalists (Italia Nostra) criticises angrily this project because it will "ruin the sights", "disturb the routes of migrating birds", and "make too noise".

Geez... if these people could have their way, WE'd live in caves while THEY would "enjoy the countryside" from their Diesel SUVs.

A fun fact:
The Regione Sardegna (Sardinia) has begun building an offshore wind farm. A group of environmentalists (Italia Nostra) criticises angrily this project because it will "ruin the sights", "disturb the routes of migrating birds", and "make too noise".

Geez... if these people could have their way, WE'd live in caves while THEY would "enjoy the countryside" from their Diesel SUVs.

:rolleyes: Doesn't surprise me. Wind developments have been taking a knock lately. Here in NZ a major development at a prime (and sparsely populated) wind site hangs in the balance because of the few locals making a fuss. I think people have been spoiled for too long not having been faced with the reality of energy production - far too convenient to get it out of a tap fed from half a world away.

Here in NZ a major development at a prime (and sparsely populated) wind site hangs in the balance because of the few locals making a fuss

In Australia a proposed wind farm looks like being canceled because there is a likelihood of a yellow-bellied parrot being chewed up in turbines every 1,000 years.

I'd say a good mixture of all of the above.

Soylent Electricity.

Vacuum energy!

Biofuels and wind would be preferable. "Clean" coal and natural gas would be a totally stupid options since methane is much more dangerous than CO2. We should keep the nuclear powers we have now but I'm against building more.

Depends on the area. The UK, for example, has a large tidal and wind potential from the Severn, Mersey and Dee rivers and a large coast for offshore wind power plants. Being mostly overcast, I doubt solar power will amount to much more than micro generation at home. I still see nuclear power as an option for densely populated areas which don't have the space or resources for renewable energy. I recommend Integral fast reactors (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html).

Biofuels and wind would be preferable. "Clean" coal and natural gas would be a totally stupid options since methane is much more dangerous than CO2. We should keep the nuclear powers we have now but I'm against building more.

Methane: the reaction is CH4+2(O2)=CO2+2(H2O)+entalpy. Hence, no difference between using methane and producing CO2. Methane is just cleaner than any other combustion fuel because you don't get SOx and NOx .
Of course, having methane free in the atmosphere isn't a great thing because of greenhouse effect, but every animal produces methane...;)

Soylent Electricity.
Green and tasty!

We should make use of every economically viable source of energy available. None should be left unexploited. With a population of roughly six billion people we'll need all the power we can get in order to bring them all up to a decent standard of living.

Joseph Longo is an idiot. There are already methods for extracting energy from trash that are less complicated and less expensive. Instead of loading the furnace of a boiler with coal you load it with unrecyclable trash. And before all you self-rightous greenies decide to "throw down" they need not pollute the air and the ash is much easier to handle and store than soggy piles of mismatched garbage.

Tidal will never meet any energy needs, it just won't. Too much equipment for too little capture.

Wind won't work out well either because the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. And did I mention that due to the intermittent nature of wind power station output that they need to be backed up with traditional power facilities?

Biofuels, just like hyrdrogen, take energy to make. You have to plant the crops, fertilize them, harvest them, process them, and distribute the fuel. Which then causes corrosion of fuel tanks or turns to sludge in cold weather. It ain't easy being green and it doesn't help "Mother Earth" as much you might think.

Joseph Longo is an idiot. There are already methods for extracting energy from trash that are less complicated and less expensive. Instead of loading the furnace of a boiler with coal you load it with unrecyclable trash. And before all you self-rightous greenies decide to "throw down" they need not pollute the air and the ash is much easier to handle and store than soggy piles of mismatched garbage.

I just think it would look cool.

Wind won't work out well either because the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power!

....What if the wind speed doubled?

And did I mention that due to the intermittent nature of wind power station output that they need to be backed up with traditional power facilities?

Well, duh, that's why I doubt many people voted for only wind power.

I'd say a good mixture of all of the above.

I agree. :)

I just think it would look cool.
A sound basis for planning a country's infrastructure ;P

....What if the wind speed doubled?
The blades break. Actually they tend to break anyway (not the sturdiest of things).

Plus, for some reason every wind farm I've seen has always had at least 15% of the turbines not functional at any given moment.

I'm an enviromentalist sceptic, and am of the opinion that there are entirely too few of us around these days.

The environmentalist movement succeeded in its first step in getting people panicky and got them to ackowledge how urgent a concern the environment is. Unfortunately, there wasn't much of an idea of where to go from there.

These days people can be convinced to do anything if they are lead to believe it is environmentally friendly. Little if any thought is put in to consider whether or not what one does actually is environmentally friendly, in fact, people almost don't care, they are addicted to that feeling of being helpful.

For example, paper recycling. People like to feel that they are helping when they put their paper to one side and dispose of it in a seperate bin, (and these people, once in positions of power seek to make the same behaviour compulsory for the other people in their office, campus, or even city or nation). However, the only thing that is being helped here is your own sense of accomplishment and the business of the exponentially-growing recycling industry - certainly the environment is not benefitting!

To explain, paper recycling is inefficient. It involves transporting tonnes of waste paper from around the given area, taking them to a facility that is often hundreds of miles away, and from there subjecting the paper to dozens of highly industrial (and heavily polluting) processes, several bouts of cleaning, repulping, steaming, more cleaning, etc. before the work can finally be put in to making some actual paper. Whereas, making fresh paper involves a lot simpler process, whereby trees are cut down (trees specifically grown for paper, deforestation is not an issue here), transported a very short distance to a paper mill (most paper mills are built inside tree farms, to minimise the extent of transportation, unlike recycling, which needlessly transports things all over the place like anyone's business), and pressed into paper in a much more simple, and much greener process.

Most 'renewable' energy resources are the same. People like to think that by installing renewable microgenerators they are helping the environment. Have these morons ever even heard of the economics of scale? Microgeneration is perversely inefficient. It is not a linear relationship between the effort put into building a, for example, wind turbine, and the energy that comes out of it. Building a single large wind turbine takes much less effort than it would take to make a number of smaller turbines that could generate the same amount of energy.

Indeed, one might as well give up on wind turbines and solar panels all together! They are simply unable to recapture the amount of energy it takes to build them in the first place (the energy used to mine the metals used to make them, mould the plastics, assemble the components, drive the engineers over to them, etc. etc.). But alas, this is again all down to people wanting to feel helpful. 'I'll attach a toy solar panel to my roof! That'll help the environment,' think some people, whereas in reality all you are doing is paying some company somewhere (a company that is based entirely on propagating this lie to you and your friends) to build a machine for no reason!

So in conclusion, think before you 'preserve'. Don't recycle anything that could be made from scratch in a more energy-efficient way (only some metals can be realistically recycled). And don't support energy 'sources' that are actually merely energy wastages.

The only exceptions to the energy wastage umbrella are hydro-electric and (if done on a large enough scale) nuclear.

I just think it would look cool.
What looks cool doesn't always get the job done. A really stylish car with no safety features won't protect you in a crash. Style over substance will get you killed.

....What if the wind speed doubled?
The mill shuts down to avoid damage. Mills are only rated to generate power within a certain range and almost never generate their nominal capacity.

Biofuels are a dreadful idea because their widespread use would drive up the price of food, and we can't really afford that. I'd rather eat than drive.

I suspect we'll rely primarily on coal, nuclear, and solar, but the solar will be space-based.

I suspect we'll rely primarily on coal, nuclear, and solar, but the solar will be space-based.
So will the nuclear. Solar panels in space only work so long as you're close enough to the sun. Once beyond Mars orbit a panel will be more of a burden than a blessing as it will not be capable of gathering enough photons to generate enough power to be worth the weight it adds to your craft. A radioisotope thermoelectric generator will be worth what it adds to your craft no matter where you go.

So will the nuclear. Solar panels in space only work so long as you're close enough to the sun. Once beyond Mars orbit a panel will be more of a burden than a blessing as it will not be capable of gathering enough photons to generate enough power to be worth the weight it adds to your craft. A radioisotope thermoelectric generator will be worth what it adds to your craft no matter where you go.
I wasn't thinking solar for spacecraft. I want huge solar panels in space to bean power down to Earth (or possibly to spacecraft, but keep the panels closer to the sun).

This would add a lot of solar energy to the Earth we don't currently get, so to avoid global warming we could hang the collectors at L1 so they act as a shield and a power supply at the same time.

I wasn't thinking solar for spacecraft. I want huge solar panels in space to bean power down to Earth (or possibly to spacecraft, but keep the panels closer to the sun).

This would add a lot of solar energy to the Earth we don't currently get, so to avoid global warming we could hang the collectors at L1 so they act as a shield and a power supply at the same time.

A giant electric cable out to L1? ...

What looks cool doesn't always get the job done. A really stylish car with no safety features won't protect you in a crash. Style over substance will get you killed.


The plasma thingy will kill us?

The plasma thingy will kill us?
No, a good looking car with no safety features will kill you. The plasma thing would kill the economy if put into mass production because there are existing, equally efficient, less expensive technologies that do the same job.

What about people generating electricity by pedalling on stationary bikes? Would solve energy and unemployment at the same time!

What about people generating electricity by pedalling on stationary bikes? Would solve energy and unemployment at the same time!

Damn you, you're taking some wind out of the 'midgets in giant hamster wheels' proposal I was about to make!

A fun fact:
The Regione Sardegna (Sardinia) has begun building an offshore wind farm. A group of environmentalists (Italia Nostra) criticises angrily this project because it will "ruin the sights", "disturb the routes of migrating birds", and "make too noise".

Geez... if these people could have their way, WE'd live in caves while THEY would "enjoy the countryside" from their Diesel SUVs.
Those are the assholes, but don't forget about the real morons, the people who only really want to hold everyone back. They see humans as "the problem" and will do anything they can to slow or stop us.

You could see proof in the fact that the same type of people who bitch about this type of stuff, are almost always anti-nuclear as well.

What about people generating electricity by pedalling on stationary bikes? Would solve energy and unemployment at the same time!

A gym in HK is doing exactly that, using the energy generated from pedalling bicycles and whatnot to supply energy back to the gym space.

In the next 50 years, it is very likely that we will run out of petroleum, also because of increase of demand from the new economical giants.

50 years?! Thats a lie. There are oil reserves off the coast of Maine that have more oil than Saudi Arabia, not to mention the enormous reserves in Alaska and Cannada. I've heard conservative estimates at 1,000 years but 50 is ridiculous.

Note: I leave out nuclear fusion (cold or hot) because it is still underdeveloped.


You should also leave out wind, photovoltaic and geothermal because they are also "under developed" and could not provide enough constant energy to power our society. Solar cells work well for satellites, but an expensive array of solar cells the size of a football feild could only power my tiny apartment for
about 2 months out of the year. The same goes for wind mills and geothermal plants. The costs greatly outweigh the benefits making them economically unfeasable.

Woo! First post in this forum. (Please excuse any typos as I have two fingers in a splint)

Anyways, Since I'm busy writing an Essay, I'll just sketch out what is going to run Most of Washington State within in the next 50 years: Canola.

Over there in Europe you guys have been doing this for years now, and getting almost 70 gallons of Biodiesel/acre.

Farmers in Snohomish, Washington State, just planted 35 acres to test the feasibility. We had snow, sleet, rain, hail, and every other possible deterrent to good growth. And we got close to 180 gallons/acre.

Unfortunately for purification of Biodiesel, you need a few other hydrocarbons. Fortunately there's a large dump not too far away. It's now capped and cranking out enough of the good stuff that once a certain farmer goes through with his plan to plant half the valley with Canola, we'll have enough biofuel coming out of the Snohomish River Valley to fuel about 80% of the driving that our populous does in a year. As in 80% of the populous of the entire state.

Now we just need the cars to burn it.

I seems to recall hearing about some technological breakthroughs that could allow solar power to become competitive with traditional sources of electric power (i.e, coal-fired power plants) within the next few years. If this actually occurs, then it's quite possible that solar power will emerge as a major source of electricity within the next few years.

As for fission (the other big contender for providing our post-petroleum energy), I suspect that concerns about terrorism and nuclear wastes will ensure that extensive fission power remains about as politically unacceptable as usual.

The same goes for wind mills and geothermal plants. The costs greatly outweigh the benefits making them economically unfeasable.

Do you have contemporary sources for this claim? Modern wind farms have an energy payback comparable to nuclear and coal plants:

"The energy payback time can be thought of as the energy used to build the plant (whether electrical or primary) divided by the electricity generated per year. The subject has recently been reviewed by Milborrow [18] who reports that various studies have calculated the energy payback time of wind turbines to lie in the range of 3 to 10 months. The payback time is found to decrease with machine size and (unsurprisingly) with wind speed. These payback times are similar to those for conventional plant."

Source (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ptgp/3-3/Pgp33text.asp#3.3-5): Milborrow, Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, as published in Windstats, vol 11, no 2 (Spring 1998).

As far as their economic feasibility, from the same paper: linky (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ptgp/3-3/Pgp33text.asp#3.3fig2-2)

Incidentally, the efficiency of modern photovoltaics has also been steadily increasing - it is now possible to get a net energy benefit from solar cells at around $0.11/kWh (US Dept of Energy).

50 years?! Thats a lie. There are oil reserves off the coast of Maine that have more oil than Saudi Arabia, not to mention the enormous reserves in Alaska and Cannada. I've heard conservative estimates at 1,000 years but 50 is ridiculous.

:confused:

Nobody on Earth, not even the API or ExxonMobil says that. Hell, even they say an oil peak within 50 years, and they're the cheerleaders for fossil fuels. 1,000 years of oil would be equal to over 31 trillion barrels of oil left undiscovered at current demand. The average amount of oil discovered each year is maybe 10-15 billion barrels per year...we have never found enough oil in the entire history of petroleum to even remotely support that statement.

The average, evidence-based estimate, at current rates of production, is maybe 1.5 to 2 trillion left to produce, and the highest estimates of 4-5 trillion (which include oilsands) are still only 1/6 of that number.

Geothermal, wind, and solar are all better than oil in both energy and economic terms. The only reason oil is still around is because of gigantic government subsidies to fossil fuels that artificially keep their prices low and the fact that our cars can't run on solar power right now.

Biofuels, just like hyrdrogen, take energy to make. You have to plant the crops, fertilize them, harvest them, process them, and distribute the fuel.

Well, some biofuels can be made just out of the fermentation of less worthy parts of crops, like maize leaves, or out of garbage and sewage.
Anyway, yea, the Well-to-Wheels cost of most sources is usually overlooked by environmentalists. I have some documentation from the CCR of Ispra (it's a research campus of the European Commission) and they calculated that the most efficient source (including the Well-to-Wheels analysis) is nuclear fission.

I wasn't thinking solar for spacecraft. I want huge solar panels in space to bean power down to Earth (or possibly to spacecraft, but keep the panels closer to the sun).

This would add a lot of solar energy to the Earth we don't currently get, so to avoid global warming we could hang the collectors at L1 so they act as a shield and a power supply at the same time.

Do you realise that this is going to cost like crazy? Plus, once you beam down the energy (in form of microwaves, I think), you'll have to
1) travel through the atmosphere - and the atmosphere isn't transparent
2) collect the energy and generate electricity (or extract H2)
3) distribute power (or H2) all around the world
Costs, costs, costs.

Really, we already get a lot of power from the Sun on the planetary surface. There are more efficient and cost-effective ways of capturing it, like thermal helioelectric: parabolic mirrors whose focus is on a water boiler, coupled to a heat reservoir to operate at night. An experimental thermal helioelectric plant is already working in Sicily.

What about people generating electricity by pedalling on stationary bikes? Would solve energy and unemployment at the same time!

And obesity also...;)

50 years?! Thats a lie.

Couldn't you just resort to a more polite "I don't think so"?


There are oil reserves off the coast of Maine that have more oil than Saudi Arabia, not to mention the enormous reserves in Alaska and Cannada. I've heard conservative estimates at 1,000 years but 50 is ridiculous.

And, of course, Maine and "Cannada" are already producing more oil than Saudi Arabia... NOT.
Even assuming there are such enormous oil reserves, why do you think no-one is exploiting them NOW? Because of huge costs. Having a lot of oil reserves is USELESS if the cost of extracting the crude is excessive. If the gasoline price at the gas station will rise to (let's say) 4 euro/litre due to extraction costs, I guess that a lot less people will use gasoline, and this will make that antieconomical.

Canola.
we'll have enough biofuel coming out of the Snohomish River Valley to fuel about 80% of the driving that our populous does in a year. As in 80% of the populous of the entire state.

The problem is, is it a good idea to convert food production to fuel production? Also, the USA have a really low population density (about 30 people/km^2). Take the EU (106 people/km^2), or India (352 people/km^2).
This is likely to be a good local solution for some places, but cannot be applied to the whole planet.

Now we just need the cars to burn it.
All Diesel cars can use vegetable oil. Just don't mix vegetable oil and standard Diesel fuel, the mix coagulates.

To create enough Bioethenol for the world you would need a field the size of north Africa to grow the plants. That is hard to do.

There however is a very neat development going on in Europe, Swedish-Germans-Dutch are very big users of this already however other nations are using it too all across the globe. Not biofuel but biogas, what you do is you take your gas you throw out and put it in a tank and then take the methane gas that comes off of it and use it to fuel powerplants and cars and your heating system etc. Its not only trash you can throw in, you can throw in food, Why? Many western nations throw away bread that is a day old etc because of the simple fact that it gets hard, now this is somewhat a waste. Or you can put in manuar (you know cow dunk etc.) that is left over after you've used it to fertilise. It's not the biggest energy source but it can provide alot, I did a study of it in school once and built a small one out of lab materials, the small installation produced huge amounts of gas.

For the other sources of energy I like to think we have enough Nuclear capability. It's safe, old western and modern other reactors are built with thick shields that Chernobyl lacked but the powerplants that melted down in the USA and Japan didn't.

While I agree hydrogen isn't a source, I shall list it as other, because being able to effectively store energy you create is also very important. It would permit solar energy to become far more powerful, by being able to build up during the day and use it at night, for example.

While I agree hydrogen isn't a source, I shall list it as other, because being able to effectively store energy you create is also very important. It would permit solar energy to become far more powerful, by being able to build up during the day and use it at night, for example.

H2 is more an efficiency improvement than anything else (it reduces W2W costs).

The solar plant projected by Carlo Rubbia (Nobel prize for physics) includes heat reservoirs to operate at night also.:)

we do not have a single source method of generating power feeding into the grid now, so the argument that any single alternative feeding into it is specious.

wind, solar and hydro, in combination, just as we have oil, coal and nuke, feeding the grid in combination now, and each in more then one form, can, and will increasingly be required to, carry the day.

another aspect of this is degree of centralization.

we have today transportation being primarily privately owned with energy being, largely purchased from central source providers. is it so inconcievable to reverse this, with every rooftop shingled with photovoltaics, every hilltop and back yard bristling with more modest windchargers then the monsters required of commercial wind farms, even micro and mini hydro applied and reapplied to SMALL DAMS UP IN THE HILLS, again rather then these unneccessarily mega water retention projects, and, by contrast, transportation being shifted to minimal form factor public modes to make the most of the comming limitation of resources?

it isn't just a matter of running out of oil, that isn't happening soon enough, and coal, which is not due to run out anywhere near soon enough, but rather the real peril we are putting the web of life, and thereby out own, as living creatures on this planet, by the combination of our numbers and the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation.

energy and transportation are in turn parts of an even larger overall picture, but rightfully important parts of it.

nukes are not an ideal solution. they are at best a temporary stopgap, though one likely to remain with us for the conceivable moment.

but beyond that a number of factors are of course converging. a magic wand that will enable our continued indifferent profligate use of combustion is unlikely to be forthcomming. however, sufficient power at the tap, to continue with one refrigerator and one modest computer such as most of us are quite capable of getting by with now, is quite well within what we might resonably expect of a grid, not merely sucked from, but cogenerated into by the individual building owner, by means of the long and well proven combination of wind, solar and hydro tecnologies.

=^^=
.../\...

And obesity also...;)

Wow, this plan just keeps revealing advantages!

A combination of biodiesel for cars and trucks and whale oil for home heating. That'd suit me fine. :)

Send that shit off into space.

And we're scared of oil running out... Whale oil... Wont sustain this planet for even a week.

And we're scared of oil running out... Whale oil... Wont sustain this planet for even a week.

A combination of wild and tank-raised whale should do the trick, if we stockpile it now. That way, 30 years from now, we have plentiful whale oil reserves. And, unlike petroleum products, whale oil doesn't go "stale" in storage, to my knowledge. I welcome a whale-based economy. :)

:confused:

Nobody on Earth, not even the API or ExxonMobil says that. Hell, even they say an oil peak within 50 years, and they're the cheerleaders for fossil fuels. 1,000 years of oil would be equal to over 31 trillion barrels of oil left undiscovered at current demand. The average amount of oil discovered each year is maybe 10-15 billion barrels per year...we have never found enough oil in the entire history of petroleum to even remotely support that statement.

The average, evidence-based estimate, at current rates of production, is maybe 1.5 to 2 trillion left to produce, and the highest estimates of 4-5 trillion (which include oilsands) are still only 1/6 of that number.

Geothermal, wind, and solar are all better than oil in both energy and economic terms. The only reason oil is still around is because of gigantic government subsidies to fossil fuels that artificially keep their prices low and the fact that our cars can't run on solar power right now.

HOly shit was I wrong. I got oil confused with hydrocarbons. Aparently we have alot of hydrocarbons left but not so much oil.

Do you have contemporary sources for this claim? Modern wind farms have an energy payback comparable to nuclear and coal plants:

ok here is my source (http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html).
It mentions how energy measurements of wind turbines are misleading because of how inconsistent their energy production is. And if wind turbines were actually efficient at producing energy, Denmark wouldn't still be running all of their coal power plants at maximun capacity.


Source (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ptgp/3-3/Pgp33text.asp#3.3-5): Milborrow, Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, as published in Windstats, vol 11, no 2 (Spring 1998).

As far as their economic feasibility, from the same paper: linky (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ptgp/3-3/Pgp33text.asp#3.3fig2-2)


this paper does not say how expensive wind turbines are or exactely how much money countrys have made off the energy they produce. It only says that "favorable policies and financial incentives" have led to more wind turbines built. Building giant termite farms would be profitable if the government subsidized it.

Incidentally, the efficiency of modern photovoltaics has also been steadily increasing - it is now possible to get a net energy benefit from solar cells at around $0.11/kWh (US Dept of Energy).

Yeah, solar cells have gone from abour 5% to 25% efficiency. Its pretty amazing. But an expensive array of solar cells on top of my house couldn't even begin to compete with a 10-horsepower Honda gas generator.

Woo! First post in this forum. (Please excuse any typos as I have two fingers in a splint)

Anyways, Since I'm busy writing an Essay, I'll just sketch out what is going to run Most of Washington State within in the next 50 years: Canola.

Over there in Europe you guys have been doing this for years now, and getting almost 70 gallons of Biodiesel/acre.

Farmers in Snohomish, Washington State, just planted 35 acres to test the feasibility. We had snow, sleet, rain, hail, and every other possible deterrent to good growth. And we got close to 180 gallons/acre.

Unfortunately for purification of Biodiesel, you need a few other hydrocarbons. Fortunately there's a large dump not too far away. It's now capped and cranking out enough of the good stuff that once a certain farmer goes through with his plan to plant half the valley with Canola, we'll have enough biofuel coming out of the Snohomish River Valley to fuel about 80% of the driving that our populous does in a year. As in 80% of the populous of the entire state.

Now we just need the cars to burn it.

Well the bad news is that biodiesel begins to gel at around 45 degrees Farenheit. It becomes completely usless by 25 degrees making winter travel impossible. Even a 50-50 mix of petrol diesel and biodiesel will cloud around 25 degrees. I know this because I have made biodiesel from canola oil and have personally tested in with a viscometer in ice water.

There is an interesting system being developed where glow plugs are used to warm enough fuel to start the engine. Then, after the engine has been running for a few minutes, hot water from the radiator is circulated around the gas tank to warm up the biodiesel. This still does not work very well and requires a very strong battery, but I'm sure it will get better.

ok here is my source (http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html).
It mentions how energy measurements of wind turbines are misleading because of how inconsistent their energy production is. And if wind turbines were actually efficient at producing energy, Denmark wouldn't still be running all of their coal power plants at maximun capacity.

The Denmark case is an interesting one because of the design of their national grid (effectively there are two, with little load balancing between them). From what I've read, most of their wind power assets are in the west, in a different electricity grid from the main load centre in the east.

No-one is suggesting that Wind power should be the only solution. Rather, a balanced power portfolio is required for load management (at least until we get international superconducting electricity grid connections and agreements - something that obviously isn't going to happen anytime soon).

Again, from what I've read, these sorts of load balancing issues for wind generation can be comfortably managed up till about 20% of total capacity. And of course, good site selection is important for any type of plant.

Algae and seaweed are the ideal source for biofuel. They could replace most of the transportation fuel requirements for the United States. Algae is very easy to grow and would be an excellent source for biofuel. A lot of what is being described as the energy crisis is fear. Combining multiple alternative energy sources across a wide variety of areas could meet all of our needs. Biofuels can use almost any organic feedstock, they are essentially biomass, everything from farm waste to animal waste, to human waste could be used to create power.

More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Furthermore, otherwise unused desert land (which receives high solar radiation) could be most effective for growing the algae, and the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae.

We are told about basic three types of alternative energy-- wind, solar, and ethanol. All three of these have seemingly overwhelming problems.

We are not introduced to non-intermittent alternative energy sources-- geothermal and tidal energy. Very little money is put into these areas. These do not go away. Most of our hydroelectric dams have not been upgraded in a very long time. This includes installing fish ladders, and introducing distributed small hydroelectric systems. These could be upgraded very easily. Investing in non-intermittent alternative energy sources would help tremendously.

There are other systems as well. Some seem unbelievable, you can run a car on air pressure if you want. There are a lot of solutions. They simply are not taking place because of greed.

There is also a lot of coal, natural gas, and uranium still available. These are very lucrative. Greed is often a problem when it comes to energy. Companies like Exxon are called the "Industrial General", they make the most money in the stock market.

We also do not hear about real potential alternative energy solutions that could permanently solve the "energy crisis"-- cracking cyanobacteria so algae splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, a potentially cheap way to mass produce hydrogen.

There are numerous statements about a massive energy crisis. A lot of it is nonsense focused on creating fear. There is too much money and subsidization involved in oil for it to go away. It is a battle of ideas.
Capitalism faces a real crisis when it goes up against modified forms of capitalism and green economics like "Natural Capitalism", "Direct Worker Ownership Capitalism" and similar things which are springing up around the ideas of environmentalism. Lovins is creating a real challenge to the old guard.

The ideas created by Mumford-- in his books Technics and Civilization and Buckminster Fuller need to be reconsidered. The idea of a technic civilization -- water-- tidal and hydroelectric, wind, solar, and biomass civilization have been around for a while. It just has never been taken seriously.

I told Kiryu-shi this last night on MSN.

Somebody should make all these teen magazines, celebrities, all the stupid magazines into some type of fuel.

I don't know that it would help stop global warming, but it's a renewable source. :)

HOly shit was I wrong. I got oil confused with hydrocarbons. Aparently we have alot of hydrocarbons left but not so much oil.

Yeah, there is a lot of coal and natural gas left. Problem is, it's not cheap; those resources are out there, but they're going to cost a lot more to produce than the stuff we have now.

To quote one the Saudi oil minister during the 1970's (whose name I've forgotten): "The stone age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will not end for lack of oil". We find things better than oil and use them instead; that's exactly what's going on right now with the use of cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas and the development of alternatives to replace it.

I told Kiryu-shi this last night on MSN.

Somebody should make all these teen magazines, celebrities, all the stupid magazines into some type of fuel.

I don't know that it would help stop global warming, but it's a renewable source. :)

should ask him what he said to you about that :p

this paper does not say how expensive wind turbines are or exactely how much money countrys have made off the energy they produce. It only says that "favorable policies and financial incentives" have led to more wind turbines built. Building giant termite farms would be profitable if the government subsidized it.

Fossil fuels get subsidized out the ass, many, many times more than any of their alternatives. In fact, that's one of the big reasons why they're still around; if we didn't spend tens, even hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidizing fossil fuels, we wouldn't be consuming them anywhere near as much as we do now. I mean, we spend a fortune keeping our navy in the Persian Gulf to protect the country that was responsible for the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11...the current state of affairs is not good for the US by any stretch.

If you took away the subsidies for oil, it would look terrible in comparison to the alternatives.