Your Favorite Source of Energy
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Your Favorite Source of Energy |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 3442
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 06:36
Profile
Homepage
I voted for Solar Power all the way across the boards. When the oil runs out, we're pretty much screwed. Not only do we guzzle it for fuel, but plastics and paints and other such things need it. I would love to see huge fields of hamsters running in their little balls generating electrickery though... -------------------- "I am a living sign..." Thus endeth this post. Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 07:39
Profile
The home of the future... Everyone will own two cows they will collect the manure for their fermenter to run their car, you will be able to drive to town twice a week-- the rest of the time you will have to use a giant tricycle.... Solar panels will be on the rooftops to run the hot water. A wind generator will run your computer, so it will be on sometimes... The dump truck will come twice a week to pick up your garbage for the landfill bioreactor... If you don't put it out, they will fine you $10,000. You will be required to grow some of your own food or be fined because only luxury goods can afford to be refrigerated... -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1558
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 12:31
Profile
. . . . . . . yeah EDIT: Thank you stareye. [ Wednesday, August 24, 2005 14:39: Message edited by: stranger ] -------------------- I'm tired of the strain and the pain ___ ___ ___ I feel the same, I feel nothing Nothing is important to me ___ ___ ___ ___ __ And nobody nowhere understands anything About me and all my dreams lost at sea ___ __ But we’re not the same, we’re different tonight We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight _ The indescribable moments of your life tonight The impossible is possible tonight ___ ____ ___ Believe in me as I believe in you, tonight Go All Blacks xtraMSN Rugby _ MuggleNet Posts: 1112 | Registered: Friday, July 19 2002 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 13:57
Profile
The question of energy is an important one. The near future will probably be continued development of Wind, Solar, Biomass, and other more creative energy sources. For baseload energy, there will probably be a mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear fission. Coal has quite a long life, but the CO2 emissions may prove to be intractable even with "clean coal" technology. Natural gas is more limited and will likely be quite volatile and expensive in the near future. Nuclear fission has the longest life of these three, emitting minimal greenhouse gases and the smallest amount of waste and an ample supply of decomissioned nuclear weapons fuel to supply it. Other possibilities may exist in the future, but this is the realistic near term. As far as nuclear fission goes, there are definitely issues with that. Fortunately, most of the safety issues have been dramatically improved with passive safety systems coupled with many years of operating experience and industry safety initiatives. Spent nuclear fuel still remains an issue; however, the volume is relatively small (a football field size that is three regular building stories high) and in a contained solid form. Although it is radioactive for some time, its toxicity is continuously decreasing. Also, the "waste" still retains over 95% of its energy content that future generations may find more economically feasible to use. The actual fission products (1-2%, the actual waste some of which may be converted to energy if we are clever enough) are much more managable than the bred actinides (2-4% usable as fuel), the rest is just depleted uranium which could theroetically be put back into the ground or bred into plutonium, a reactor fuel. Beyond the near term, it depends on what energy sources are developed and at what cost. Wind looks promising, solar is a toss up, nuclear fusion could go either way but is a very, very long way off. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 14:43
Profile
Solar is no longer a toss up. With the increasing cost of oil, it is getting a big boost right now. There is a New York Times article from August 5, 2005 that basically says that the solar industry cannot provide enough panels with rising demands. There is a large back log of orders for solar power. Also in California, there is an iniative called the Million Solar Roofs which heavily subsidizes the solar industry to build a viable solar home industry. In addition there is a huge tax break in the energy bill $4000 to install home solar power. Also, many companies are providing solar mortgages as part of the building cost of a house. GE bought out Astropower which went bankrupt three years ago, one of the largest solar power alternative energy companies. GE will do for the solar industry what GE did for wind energy industry. It looks like the other one Evergreen Solar should reach profitability within two years. Kyocera the third big one which is Japanese is already profitable. The other option is something called the Solar Sterling Engine which is about twice as efficient as traditional photovoltaic cells. Sterling Energy Systems is building a 500 MW solar project in the Mojave desert of California which should be finished in four years. [ Thursday, August 25, 2005 04:05: Message edited by: I'll Steal Your Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 16:52
Profile
Homepage
If we could just figure out fusion, then all these nuclear waste problems would be over. However, the problem is the amount of energy it takes to heat the hydrogen to 15 million kelvins. As for solar power you'd think you could put a sub-Mercury orbiting solar generator or something. :P But then you'd have to transport it, which is another significant problem with electricity. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 17:22
Profile
Homepage
Solar panels are definitely very popular and strongly encouraged, but they are still, as far as I know, not terribly efficient, fairly expensive, and extremely dependent on circumstances. They may be good, and they may help defray electricity costs, but solar energy can't solve the problem. —Alorael, who now fondly recalls the microwave power plants of SimCity 2000 and the "oops beam" fun that resulted. One can only imagine the joys of stringing power lines out to Mercury. Not that you'd have to, though. All you need is a satellite able to stay near Earth but out of Earth's shadow (and, ideally, not casting a shadow itself) with accompanying power lines. Still impossible, but less so. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 17:44
Profile
quote:That's not the problem. Heating a plasma to those 10 keV temperatures is not all that difficult. The issue is keeping the plasma stable and confining it. As far as solar panels, the problem is the high cost at the low power density. It's just cheaper to build alternative energy sources. While touching governments and altruistic individuals are trying to promote the energy source, in the long run solar PV would cause a dramatic increase in the electricity bill, at least with current technology. [ Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:46: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 18:03
Profile
Homepage
Isn't the trouble with fusion at the moment that you have to put more energy in than you get out? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 18:25
Profile
Homepage
That energy goes to confining and stabilizing the plasma, I think. —Alorael, who would rather not gamble on the possible creation of easy energy via a process that hasn't worked so far. It could, but it would really be bad to figure out that it won't after refusing to invest in anything else. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 24 2005 18:48
Profile
Fusion definitely has worked before. The major example being the stars; our sun, the source of most of our energy is nuclear fusion. In that case, there is a net energy gain. The other "device" that utilizes fusion is the hydrogen bomb, which definitely gives a net output of energy. The sun cannot be replicated and the hydrogen bomb is not controlled. Efforts in magnetic confinement have been geared toward keeping the plasma contained long enough to get a net extraction of energy. Right now, we are pretty much at breakeven; however, we have not entered the state of a burning plasma that sustains itself on the fusion reaction much like a fire does. The physics of this is not very well known and will determine whether magnetic fusion will be viable. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, August 25 2005 17:24
Profile
Homepage
Hmmmm, that's interesting. I have pretty, good hope, though, that new technology in the future will make things like fusion viable and very profitable and desired. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, August 28 2005 18:48
Profile
An international consortium is supposedly building a humungous fusion reactor in France over the next ten years. ITER, which stands for something like 'International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor', will not be an economical device: its highest goal is proof-of-principle. If it fulfills everyone's highest hopes, fusion plants might be supplying power grids in twenty or thirty years. The discouraging thing is that people have been saying that for nearly fifty years now already. The track record of fusion power experiments isn't good. My favorite power source is the Hawking furnace, which was invented right here, in this board, some months ago. Well, it was given that catchy name here. The concept probably occurs to half the people who ever hear of the Hawking effect. I'm still trying to check whether anyone has worked out enough details to squeeze a paper out of it, and if not, whether I can. [ Sunday, August 28, 2005 18:49: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Sunday, August 28 2005 23:09
Profile
quote:Propably more like: Your house is warmed by gheothermal compressor, your computer runs with electricity produced by nearby nuclear powerplant and your car runs on ethanol. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, August 29 2005 06:11
Profile
quote:Yes, that is correct. I work on the neutronic calculations for that device, incidentally enough. I honestly doubt DT fusion will be economical, the material damage issues from 14 MeV neutrons mandates replacement of the now highly radioactive (but fairly short half-life relative to fission) inner walls every few years. This is a daunting technical and economic hurdle for a fusion device, even if it can prove principle. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, August 29 2005 07:49
Profile
The supermarket of the future. Solar panels on the roofs. A wind generator in back. A back up biodiesel generator for when the power goes out. A fleet of plug in hybrid biodiesel delivery trucks. Connection to the grid run by a pebble bed small scale nuclear reactor. Landscaping in front to create wind breaks and shading to keep the temperature cool. Insulated windows and walls to keep bills down. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 6074
|
written Monday, August 29 2005 10:50
Profile
The future... Is clouded with many mysteries... [ Monday, August 29, 2005 10:51: Message edited by: Dragon_Slayer ] -------------------- --------------------------------- Live long and prosper. Posts: 84 | Registered: Wednesday, July 6 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Monday, August 29 2005 17:18
Profile
Homepage
He he, lucky me, I have a wind generator in the back. a fair size one too, probably seven feet in diameter. But even with the wind we get, it still takes a while to charge a standard car battery. We only use it for a couple lights in our house and to run the fridge every once in a while. Yes, my computer is still eating up the coal. :P -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 04:21
Profile
The real problem with nuclear reactors. Mutant critters. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050829/D8C9HR480.html :cool: Birthplace of the tentacle monster. [ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 04:47: Message edited by: I'll Steal Your Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 04:33
Profile
Homepage
"Abnormal accumulation of jellyfish" is quite possibly the best phrase ever. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 154
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 05:10
Profile
Er..I would have voted hydroelectric power if it were avaliable. I don't see how it would be a waste. Not to mention that electricity is not efficiently storable in mass, at least in electrical form. This is what makes wind power not so good; the wind isn't reliable and you can't store power for when it isn't blowing. It's either blowing and you have electricity, or it's not. Or so I am led to believe. -------------------- Inconsistently backward. SWOH. IM, PATF, ND. Posts: 612 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 07:57
Profile
Assuming that hydro dams are built with fish passage in mind, there are still problems with the current design. Every river transports sediment through the energy of the moving water. As soon as that water slows, the sediment drops out, elevating the river bed. Eventually the area behind a dam goes from 100% water to 25% water/75% silt and there isn't enough stored water to power the turbines during the late summer months. I'm not aware of efforts to remove the silt, but it seems like it hasn't happened in my area yet. I would have to wonder if the EPA would also consider that the silt had toxic materials in it, making it hazardous waste as soon as it was removed from the river bed. Anyway, hydro dams have a lifespan of around 100 years, depending on how much sediment gets captured in the impoundment, and the cleanup problem at the end is dangerous and daunting. *this message sponsored by the bureau of reclamation* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 16:00
Profile
Can someone explain what "bubble fusion" is. Apparently, it has reappeared as a possibility this year July 2005. Sounds kind of funny to me. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 16:28
Profile
Homepage
Does that have any relation to cold fusion? *Shoot. Perfect time to steal Alo's sig. Anyway.* I can see the problem with the silt thing, and I'm not sure how to fix it other than spending a bunch of money, but America does crave their electricity, especially for message board posting. [ Tuesday, August 30, 2005 16:29: Message edited by: Benny Boy ] -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, August 30 2005 17:34
Profile
Homepage
Bubble fusion isn't *really* cold fusion, because it's occurring at temperatures of millions of Kelvin. But it's not traditional "hot" fusion either, because the regions in which those temperatures are achieved are very small. Basically, it works on the principle that under certain conditions, the collapse of small bubbles in a liquid can produce localised regions of extremely high temperature. I don't think anyone's definitively proven that you can get fusion that way yet, but there have been some very suggestive results. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2