Alternative Energy Sources

[sheldon]

As we know, the United States consumes more power than any other country in the world. The success of the U.S. can be directly related to its power consumption. Most of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels (Coal) that puts Co2 in the atmosphere, this is causing major pollution. The U.S. has refused to take this matter seriously and continues its consumption, and the amount needed in the future will only rise. There are alternative power sources such as wind, solar, hydro. These simply aren't going to meet the demands of the future although will supliment nicely. Even if the U.S. decided to fully try and solve this problem, we don't have the technology to accomplish the goal. There are ideas such as cold fusion, nuclear, and many others. I am writing this thread because I believe that the minds on here can come up with the answer. What is your ideas on this problem and what technology can replace coal?

[FZ+]

Even if the U.S. decided to fully try and solve this problem, we don't have the technology to accomplish the goal.
NOOOOOO....
We do have the technology.
We do have the science.
We do NOT have the motivation.

People will only turn to alternative energy sources if there is an immediate reason to change their mind. People are like that. If we knew coal was running out tommorrow, say, then we would certainly act. But if it is a few years or decades, then nobody bats an eyelid. If the date is indeterminate, nobody cares at all.

If we could get the real spending, the preparedness to change government policy, the accepting of responsibility, we would be in that paradise right now.

Major possibilities:

Fusion: The main target right now. Few of the disadvantages of fission stations with high power output. Difficult to sustain or control though. Maybe we'll find out the secret of controlled fusion within 20 years. But don't hold your breath....

Cold Fusion: Well, kinda rejected by science community after various early scandals, and lack of theoretical backing. Still going though. Might be a chance.

Solar: Can be used NOW. Various countries already use it for water heating. Needs steady sunlight. Possibility of satellite power station - increase output and efficiency.

Wind: Same. Rather unreliable.

Hydroelectric: Expensive. Lack of good sites.

Biogas: cheap.

A combination of the above can supplement our power needs for quite a while.

[sheldon]

I totaly agree, the problem is the fact that we have an abundant source of coal to use and no other significant alternative. I believe if there were a significant alternative the motivation to change would follow.

[russ_watters]

FZ+, what about plain old ordinary nuclear fission? It is clean and safe and inexpensive - and the we don't have to invent any technology to use it. It is an immediate and viable alternative to coal.

Solar could easily have a big impact if the government gave a tax deduction for installing them on your roof.

[GENIERE]

Our good friends and allies, the French, generate most of their electric power via fission. The American public is paranoid when the words “nuclear” or “atomic” are used due to the sometimes irrational views of environmental groups. How many people would submit to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for a medical diagnosis if they knew it was really Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging? It’s likely that fusion power will be available in the next 30-50 years. Until then, fission technology is best able to supply environmentally clean energy. All energy sources pollute directly or indirecty. The well-known safety and environmental hazards associated with fission power can be dealt with if the public is sufficiently knowledgeable of the pros, not just the cons. Safe storage and disposal of waste, and the de-commissioning of nuclear power stations are problems that have practical solutions.

A national educational marketing campaign and a name change is needed to counter environmental groups’ propaganda. Fission reactors should be called “PURE” for Power Using Radiant Energy.

Regards

[The Grimmus]

well u have to undersatnd americans are mostly morons, no wait let me refrasi that we are iggnerant so nuclear fission is out of the question in america so is nuke-key-lure energy that Bush is always tlaking about.

But in 2008 i think we finish a laser taht will fuse two hyrdrogen atoms, so it is either that or burning little children soilent electtic

[drag]

Greetings !

It is not that difficult to cover a small desert
with solar panels to power the whole of the US.
It is also not difficult to build enough wind
and sea power stations that can generate all
the power that's required. The problem is that
the supply is changing and a lot more needs
to be built to make sure power is received in
the neccessary amount (and solar power is only for
daytime). In the long run, however, this is bound
to payoff. The political problems are a mess though.

Vehicles are a problem but technology is catching
up quicly.

One of the ideas I considered and expressed on PF
before is that the world needs a world-wide network
of renewable energy sources. It can span continents
and oceans like the Internet and it will be
a single market which will allow countries to spare
money on building too many renewable energy sources,
reduce the total energy cost and will help
develop many of the undeveloped countries.
Again, the problem is politics - international this time.

Live long and prosper.

[LURCH]

Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles will probably be first. As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the key is to supply proper motivation. Currently, producing enough hydrogen to propel a fuel cell driven the car the same distance as one down of gasoline drives an internal combustion car, costs about $2.50. This price will continue to come down rapidly, as new technologies always too. Meanwhile, it has been predicted by some that gasoline will reach a price in excess of $2.50 per gallon within the next year.

I think that, once the prices are the same, or even close to the same, we will begin to make the switch in earnest.

As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal.

[damgo]

The American public is paranoid when the words “nuclear” or “atomic” are used due to the sometimes irrational views of environmental groups. I think the paranoia predated environmentalism, but it certainly hasn't helped. Other good examples of this is the criminal lack of food irradiation in the USA, and the hysteria over depleted uranium weapons.

Speaking of it, any of you guys have a link to some accurate info on the safety/waste risks of fission plants? How big they are, solutions, advances, comparative risks, etc.

[GENIERE]

As I stated, no energy source is pollution free.

Solar cells: Huge environmental impact due to paving over millions of acres of desert with silicon. What harmful effects would occur due to the change in libido? Toxic manufacturing processes are used.

Wind power: Minimal studies done on sonic pressure waves and long-term exposure of flora and fauna. Hugely disturbs the mostly pristine sites these mills would have to be located. Have you ever seen the hillsides about 80 miles east of San Francisco?

Tidal and ocean current power: Again causes pressure waves with unknown effects. It may be out of sight but the fishes may not like it.

Beamed energy from space: Too many consequences to list

Geo-Thermal power may be a possibility.

What are the long-term consequences of extracting energy from the environment?

All above may suffice for local needs in some areas with minimal impact.

Hydrogen is a great fuel, but energy is needed to extract it.

Right now, fission is only way to go.

Regards

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
It is not that difficult to cover a small desert
with solar panels to power the whole of the US.
It is also not difficult to build enough wind
and sea power stations that can generate all
the power that's required. Could you do some quick math on that? Its a ton more difficult than you think.Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles will probably be first. As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the key is to supply proper motivation. Currently, producing enough hydrogen to propel a fuel cell driven the car the same distance as one down of gasoline drives an internal combustion car, costs about $2.50. This price will continue to come down rapidly, as new technologies always too. Meanwhile, it has been predicted by some that gasoline will reach a price in excess of $2.50 per gallon within the next year. Lurch, since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE.As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal. Fission is NOT dangerous and it is far better to store the waste in drums than say blow it out a smokestack ie coal.Speaking of it, any of you guys have a link to some accurate info on the safety/waste risks of fission plants? How big they are, solutions, advances, comparative risks, etc. I don't have any specific links, but I'm sure you know the worst nuclear power accident in the US was at Three Mile Island. There are tons of sites about it and a health study was recently published about the long term health effects on the surrounding community (none whatsoever). For advances, look into "pebble-bed" reactors - an inherrently safe reactor technology (meltdown is impossible).

[FZ+]

Fission is NOT dangerous and it is far better to store the waste in drums than say blow it out a smokestack ie coal.
So you have no problems with say, the North Koreans, setting up their own nuclear reactor? [;)] I think any of these dual use technologies have their inherent danger. And waste is still expensive to store, and hard ultimately to dispose of. But I agree the major problem is that of public relations. People don't like the idea of barrels of material being carted around on highways. Notice the uproar in the past over some nuclear fuel being just flown over a country.

People will only start to be confident over nuclear power when Mr Burns becomes the Simpsons' hero, and the Springfield Power Plant is a haven of birds and small animals, rather then a vision of harzardous waste hell. It's what I call the Homer factor.

[enigma]

The problem is cost. It costs much more per kiloWatt*hour to get electricity from solar than it does from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

That definately goes against what the environazi's would want you to believe. It's not as simple as: build a huge solar power station, sit back, enjoy the free power. You have to deal with really low efficiencies of the cells, you have to deal with solar cells burning out, you have to deal with keeping them clean (damn birds...), etc. etc.

Can you imagine the damage to the environment of not only the solar fields themselves, but the landfills FULL of burnt out cells?

Re: nuclear. The problem is public hysteria. Yes, there is a risk of an accident. An accident has the chance of increasing cancer rates. What people don't realise is that coal, gas, and oil plants can increase the cancer risks also. They spew tons and tons of C14 into the air every year. And that is even without an accident.

Nuclear waste can relatively easily be sealed in drums and buried deep underground. The problem is, noone wants to be the lucky caretaker of the glowing stuff.

The hydrogen fuel cell cars will reduce pollution, but they will increase electricity consumption. Power plants are much more pollution efficient than automobiles are.

This statement however:

The U.S. has refused to take this matter seriously and continues its consumtion


Is blatantly false. If you look at the pollution outputs from factories over the past 150 years, they have gone down and down and down. The chief factor of this is environmental protection laws being passed. The leader of this trend is the US. Our factories are cleaner than anywhere else in the world. People just look at the stats for 'total pollution' and point the finger at us. We have more factories than anywhere else. They are still the cleanest. Who is the worst villain here?

[avemt1]

russ_watters
since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE. THere are sources of hydrogen production plants right under your feet. just take a bucket of soil, heta it to about 220 degrees F and let it cool. you now have millions of hydrogen producing plants working for only you.
It is cheep, safe, and clean.

[Rebel]

but the bad thing about heating it and letting cool is that you are using energy to create energy which might cancel each other out which would be a waste of time.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by avemt1
THere are sources of hydrogen production plants right under your feet. just take a bucket of soil, heta it to about 220 degrees F and let it cool. you now have millions of hydrogen producing plants working for only you.
It is cheep, safe, and clean. Like I said to someone else before - do some quick math on it. It is not as easy or energy efficient as people want to believe. Bottom line, if it were as easy as people want to believe it is, people would already be doing it.

Also, hydrogen producing plants? Huh? Plants don't produce hydrogen, they produce hydrocarbons (and oxygen).

[avemt1]

but the bad thing about heating it and letting cool is that you are using energy to create energy which might cancel each other out which would be a waste of time.
THe only reason we heat the soil is to kill all the hydrogen consumers without killing the hydrogen producers.
Also, hydrogen producing plants? Huh? Plants don't produce hydrogen, they produce hydrocarbons (and oxygen).
Not plants, but bacteria!

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by LURCH
As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal.

Fission is only dangerous when not treated properly e.g. Chernobyl. In this sense it is the same as anything e.g. explosives can be used for good things as well as for killing people. Also please note that the nulcear industry has one of the best safety records you can find. Most of the worry is in peoples minds.

On the issue of renewable I think it's silly to put your eggs in one basket beacuse no one energy source can deal with the energy demands of the modern world. However renewables are limited and so really need to be complented by something else. Fusion is ideal but it's not here yet, maybe 30/40 years off (anybody heard that before [:D] ). Perhaps fission could be the stop-gap choice?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Fission is only dangerous when not treated properly e.g. Chernobyl. In this sense it is the same as anything e.g. explosives can be used for good things as well as for killing people. Also please note that the nulcear industry has one of the best safety records you can find. Most of the worry is in peoples minds.
As a matter of fact, the safety record of nuclear power industry is absolutely perfect for its impact on civilians. No civilian has ever died as a result of a nuclear power acident. Thousands die every year due to complications from air pollution.

There are tecnologies available now to make them even better. Pebble-bed nuclear reactors for example are incapable of meltdown and can be re-fueled on the fly, increasing productivity and efficiency and reducing the cost of the reactor. However, due to politics (unreasonable hysteria), there hasn't been a single nuclear power lant built in the US in something like 25 years.

[FZ+]

As a matter of fact, the safety record of nuclear power industry is absolutely perfect for its impact on civilians. No civilian has ever died as a result of a nuclear power acident. Thousands die every year due to complications from air pollution.
Though I agree that nuclear power is presently safe, I don't think this assertion is entirely correct. The fact is, when nuclear contamination causes things like cancer that do occur normally, it is difficult to quantify the full effects of the accident. You can say no civilian directly died of a nuclear accident, in that none of them were blown up or anything, but the statistical cancer and birth defect rate in chernobyl is unusually high, and it probably had a link to the power plant accident.

[enigma]

Thousands died in Chernobyl, no?

At very least a few hundred... People still can't go to the site without the full marshmallow suits on.

[sir-pinski]

I can't remeber how many workers died as a direct result of the chernobyl accident but I know that some did. However chernobyl is not a good example of nuclear practices in most of the world. The reactor was a botch job in the first place, badly designed and not operated safely. Most western countries have very effective safety policies in place which has resulted in an excellent safety record. Besides how many seriously poluting nuc. accidents have there been? I don't think there have been many over the last 50 years. Not bad for a supposedly dangerous technology.

As far as pebble bed's go, a lot of people have commented on them as the better alternative to current reactors, however as far as I'm aware no one has built one yet. Perhaps one day but not in the near future. Mind you the U.S. still has the most plants in the world although it doesn't generate as much electricity from them.

[Jikx]

but what are you going to do with the all that nuclear waste? Ship it to Australia [g)] ??

I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free..

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by Jikx
but what are you going to do with the all that nuclear waste? Ship it to Australia [g)] ??

Any reason why australia? [:D]

The amount fo nuclear waste that is produced is not as much as most people think. A rough ball park figure is that a typical family will produce a 10 cm^3 block of waste from the electricity they use in their lifetime i.e. 80-100 years. This is small in comparison with the waste from lots of other energy sources. I know the waste is a problem but let's be pragmatic here. A good energy supply is required which doesn't spew out tonnes of CO2, nuclear fits the bill. It's not a final solution but it's good enough for now.

Originally posted by Jikx
I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free.

But that's not going to happen. Even if the western world reduces it's consumption then the other 4 billion (and increasing) people in the world will make that up. There are countries in the world that are are going to want increased electricty generation in the next 50 years and someone has to provide it. It's pretty unavoidable I'm afraid.

[quantumcarl]

My alternative:

Everybody live in a tent, walk everywhere, use a canoe and learn how to survive like that. Fu** rush hour.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Though I agree that nuclear power is presently safe, I don't think this assertion is entirely correct. The fact is, when nuclear contamination causes things like cancer that do occur normally, it is difficult to quantify the full effects of the accident. You can say no civilian directly died of a nuclear accident, in that none of them were blown up or anything, but the statistical cancer and birth defect rate in chernobyl is unusually high, and it probably had a link to the power plant accident. Sorry, I was referring to the US nuclear power industry. The US nuclear power industry isn't comparable to Russia's. I should have been more clear. Chernobyl was a flawed design that was well known (by even the Russians) to be a bomb waiting to go off.

The worst nuclear accident in US history was TMI. It released a trivial amount of radioactive material and a broad study recently showed no statistically relevant increase in cancer rates in the surrounding community.

I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free.. That is simply not a viable option. I read somewhere that half (3/4?) of the worlds population has no access to electricity. That won't last forever. Demand for power is only going to increase exponentially for the forseeable future.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Any reason why australia? [:D]

The amount fo nuclear waste that is produced is not as much as most people think. A rough ball park figure is that a typical family will produce a 10 cm^3 block of waste from the electricity they use in their lifetime i.e. 80-100 years. This is small in comparison with the waste from lots of other energy sources. I know the waste is a problem but let's be pragmatic here.

I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm3 kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO2 released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm3 of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm3 kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO2 released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm3 of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls? One thing though. Currently that nuclear waste is NOT released into the environement and does NOT kill people. Pollution from fossil fuel plants IS and DOES.

I think fencing off a couple of square miles of desert in New Mexico for 100,000 years is a reasonable tradeoff.

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by LURCH
I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm3 kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO2 released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm3 of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls?

As russ said it's not released into the environment wheras CO2 is. The rate of production of waste is nothing like that produced by other industries and it is managed with a high level of care. There are also new nuclear fuels being researched which could help in the waste problem and are looking promising. As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste?

Don't get me wrong on this, if there was a good alternative I wouldn't choose nuclear fission at all but until one pops up I see nuclear as the best option for a large amount of electricity generation.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste? I was going to let that one slide because I think regardless, nuclear is a good idea. But I agree with you - we will find other ways of dealing with the waste issue. We do however currently need a temporary fix.

[sir-pinski]

I have to agree that this argument is not the best for nuclear PR but I've heard the "waste still around in 10,000 years" argument too many times.

There are some nice new ideas for nuclear fuels which only burn plutonium. It's very good for non-proliferation and does reduce how nasty the waste is.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
I have to agree that this argument is not the best for nuclear PR but I've heard the "waste still around in 10,000 years" argument too many times.

There are some nice new ideas for nuclear fuels which only burn plutonium. It's very good for non-proliferation and does reduce how nasty the waste is.

Would it hurt much to blow all the nuke waste into the Sun?

Just a few bucks spent on rocket fuel and techies.

We spend way more on saving little Iraqi children from bad guys with moustaches.

Why keep the waste around here?

The Sun handles that kind of stuff all the time.

[FZ+]

Would it hurt much to blow all the nuke waste into the Sun?
Just a few bucks spent on rocket fuel and techies.
Make that a few billion bucks.... More perhaps, considering how heavy fissile materials usually are. And I doubt the public will be very happy about a few tons of highly hazardous nuclear waste being strapped on top of several megatons of high explosive rocket fuel.... On, and you'll probably lose the rocket itself too.
We spend way more on saving little Iraqi children from bad guys with moustaches.
Yes, but that sort of stuff gets you votes in the next elections. Launching rockets packed with nuclear material would hardly be popular, unless you are targeting communists or something.
Why keep the waste around here?
Cheap. Pretty safe as we can keep a watch on it. That sort of thing...
The Sun handles that kind of stuff all the time.
Er... no. Stars only generate heavier metals like uranium when they going into a rather fun event called a supernova. This usually only happens once. It is inadvisible to be within a distance of a few hundred light years when it happens.[:D]

[LURCH]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste?


Oh no, I'm not saying that at all! What troubles me is not the question of what they'll do with it then, I'm sure they'll have found a way to make a popular soft-drink out of it! But if you only look at where we put it today and what our decendants will do with it ten millenia from now, you miss the "big picture"; all those days in between. During those 10,000 years, governments will rise and fall, the languages will change, maps will be re-written, and we won't lose track of this stuff that whole time? The pyramids will probably not last that long, do you think we can build a sealed container that will? This waste will be sitting there every day for that entire period of time, and if we screw up on just one of those days...

What would be required for the waste to be safely stored is a ten-thousand-year-long "perfect record". I just don't know if we can go that long without one botch-job.

QuantumCarl, no, we couldn't do anything to harm the Sun. We aren't even close to that powerfull yet. But, as FZ+ said, that would be tremendously expensive. Also, it is a near certainty that one of these rockets would crash every now and then. And radioactive waste atomised by re-entry into the atmosphere is a real nightmare scenario!

[sheldon]

Considering the fact that we have an abundant amount of coal and are already using it. Maybe we should focus on CO2 scrubbing technology on the rear of these plants?

[sir-pinski]

It's unlikely that nuclear fission will be providing power in any great quantities beyond this next century or so. This means we don't have a huge amount of waste. I can understand some peoples worries about stability of waste sites, geologically and socially. However I think we may have a solution to the waste problem sooner than 10,000 years. I'm also convinced about the safety of long term storage sites from geological events and tampering. It's not as if they just throw a few barrels down the hole.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
Make that a few billion bucks.... More perhaps, considering how heavy fissile materials usually are. And I doubt the public will be very happy about a few tons of highly hazardous nuclear waste being strapped on top of several megatons of high explosive rocket fuel.... On, and you'll probably lose the rocket itself too.

Yes, but that sort of stuff gets you votes in the next elections. Launching rockets packed with nuclear material would hardly be popular, unless you are targeting communists or something.

Cheap. Pretty safe as we can keep a watch on it. That sort of thing...

Er... no. Stars only generate heavier metals like uranium when they going into a rather fun event called a supernova. This usually only happens once. It is inadvisible to be within a distance of a few hundred light years when it happens.[:D]

Just an idea!!! Gees... talk about party poopers!!!...

I thought about the danger of lobing the stuff tied to a ton of Hydrogen fuel etc... yes... dangerous.... but, we strap people to those things practically every month... or used to.

Nice.

At some point we will simply rearrange the molecular structure of the waste to replicate BBQ ribs... taste, protien content and texture to boot... I reckon.

[anil]

Most of the energy for home doesn't come from fossil fuels but from Nuclear energy/ Only automotives use fossil fuels. Any Solar, hydro, wind and fuel cells require specific condition. For example: Solar needs heat from sun, hydro need moment of water, and fuel cells need extreme cold temperatures such as -100+ F of temperature. Nuclear energy produces very low nuclear waste compared to other resources but very dangerous. Will likely remain in dominant for next one billion years since the sources are highly available. Fossil fuel in automotives will likely be replace by NE fuel cell tecnology by around 2050.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by anil
Most of the energy for home doesn't come from fossil fuels but from Nuclear energy/ Only automotives use fossil fuels. Fully HALF of the elctricity in the US comes from burning COAL. Astonishing, but true.

[Kylon]

Nuclear fission is the future. I think that you could probably get rid of the waste if, the hotter something is the faster it releases energy. Radiation is energy, we don't want the waste because it emits alot of radiation.

We should just build a big reactor inside the mountains. Then if it exploded(which is wouldn't because pebble reactor) it would not effect anybody. Put it in a dry mountain.

[avemt1]

Originally posted by Kylon
Nuclear fission is the future. I think that you could probably get rid of the waste if, the hotter something is the faster it releases energy. Radiation is energy, we don't want the waste because it emits alot of radiation.

We should just build a big reactor inside the mountains. Then if it exploded(which is wouldn't because pebble reactor) it would not effect anybody. Put it in a dry mountain.
FIrst thing you still have the tree huggers and the problem with environmental stigma. A Mountain might contain a meltdown, but you have to remember that a meltdown can get up to many hundred thousands of Degrees F. Also, that heat rises, and would probably melt the mountain down. If the mass of the reactor is large enough.

[plus]

I think that wind can provide enough energy for the entire world, especially in places with large coastlines and not too large populations. The technology is there. They have 2MW generators.
Some weirdos just disagree because they don't look nice.

Well how nice will they look if e.g they get skin cancer from depleted ozone layer?

[The Grimmus]

Is it possable to make energy the way our boady dose? but on an extream level, then sugar would rain supreme

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by plus
I think that wind can provide enough energy for the entire world, especially in places with large coastlines and not too large populations. The technology is there. They have 2MW generators.
Some weirdos just disagree because they don't look nice.

Well how nice will they look if e.g they get skin cancer from depleted ozone layer? A quick calculation: The energy capacity of the US is approximately 800,000 MW. Thats 400,000 windmills. Thats a lot of windmills.

A single nuclear reactor (plants typically have 2-4 reactors) generates about 2,000 MW. Thats 400 reactors.

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by Kylon
We should just build a big reactor inside the mountains. Then if it exploded(which is wouldn't because pebble reactor) it would not effect anybody. Put it in a dry mountain.

Some research reactors do this and it's quite effective. However you still need a lot of the other protection measures, such as you pressurised reactor containment. You also need to be very certain of the geology of the region as well. I will point out again that pebble bed reactors whilst a nice idea have yet to be realised in practice.

[plus]

Originally posted by russ_watters
A quick calculation: The energy capacity of the US is approximately 800,000 MW. Thats 400,000 windmills. Thats a lot of windmills.

A single nuclear reactor (plants typically have 2-4 reactors) generates about 2,000 MW. Thats 400 reactors.


1 windmill for every 600 people - not too extravagant.

[kleinjahr]

For a quickie course on nuclear power check out;
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/
http://www.cns-snc.ca/home_eng.html

Most other forms of alternative power sources are either highly localised, tidal or geothermal, or intermittent such as wind or ground based solar. They may supplement our regular or traditional sources but they cannot replace them. Especially as demand for power is growing.

As for those of you complaining about the CO2 put out by thermal plants. Well excuse me for doing my job properly. CO2 in flue gases is a good thing because it indicates efficient complete combustion. The presence of CO or sulphur on the other hand means incomplete combustion and the cocommittant loss of efficiency. That loss of efficiency results in worse pollution and higher costs to the consumers.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kleinjahr
As for those of you complaining about the CO2 put out by thermal plants. Well excuse me for doing my job properly. CO2 in flue gases is a good thing because it indicates efficient complete combustion. The presence of CO or sulphur on the other hand means incomplete combustion and the cocommittant loss of efficiency. That loss of efficiency results in worse pollution and higher costs to the consumers. Nevertheless, CO2 isn't a good thing to be putting into the atmosphere.

[damgo]

The big problem with wind and solar power is that their output is too variable. Power demand doesn't drop appreciably on cloudy or non-windy days, and storing electricity is terribly expensive. So while they could be useful as a supplemental source or for certain non-time-critical applications, they're really not suitable for general use.

[The Grimmus]

cant we just brun the boadys that we find in the graveyards when the wind dies and the clouds come out. Boadys brun for pretty long and I mean it isent like we are using them and it makes more space for important things like solar panals.

[sheldon]

http://www.fe.doe.gov/techline/tl_sequestration_strata1.shtml

[plus]

Originally posted by damgo
The big problem with wind and solar power is that their output is too variable. Power demand doesn't drop appreciably on cloudy or non-windy days, and storing electricity is terribly expensive. So while they could be useful as a supplemental source or for certain non-time-critical applications, they're really not suitable for general use.

Need things which 'smooth out' power distribution over time.

Can do this in small time, but on large scale it is diffucult. Coal and gas could be used to fill in this gap.

At any rate, this effect would not start to have an effect until power from renewable sources reaches ~50%. There is still a long way to go until even this target is reached.

[LURCH]

Sheldon, that certainly looks better than the idea for sequestering CO2 at the bottom of the ocean. One detail sounds rather discouraging, however; the fact that it took 20 days to pump as much CO2 into the ground as a single power plant makes in a day. Maybe that was just because no special equipment for mass-pumping has yet been developed, though.

I'm a bit unclear as to the exact effects of CO2 on the environment. I'm particularly wondering, out of all the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere each year, how much is from human tech?

[sheldon]

I am unsure of the details of the effect of CO2 on the environment also, I think the whole human race is somewhat unsure. We are sure it is doing something though and not good. As far as our production of the gas verses natural productions of it like from animals, and roting organic matter I am unsure of the ratio. Maybe we need to give our coal plants a dose of beano[6)]

[damgo]

Most of the CO2 output is from human industry -- like 80% I believe. See http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg , tho that just gives total concentration.

[sheldon]

dang thats some scary looking results. I hope it is wrong, but probably not[:((]

[LURCH]

Originally posted by damgo
Most of the CO2 output is from human industry -- like 80% I believe. See http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg , tho that just gives total concentration.

Yep, I checked the USGS, and they say...
Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emmited by volcanoes...

Pretty scary stuff, alright![8)]

[sheldon]

I realy hate to say or think like this, but are we doomed to failure because of lack of political attention to the problem? Do you believe it is going to take mass flooding and destruction etc. to make us change, or are we evolved enough to be proactive? I realy wonder if we are going to make this transition or not? Sad to say that we are going to screw the earth up because of denial.[:(]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sheldon
I realy hate to say or think like this, but are we doomed to failure because of lack of political attention to the problem? Do you believe it is going to take mass flooding and destruction etc. to make us change, or are we evolved enough to be proactive? I realy wonder if we are going to make this transition or not? Sad to say that we are going to screw the earth up because of denial.[:(] For the near future, yes. We are doomed to failure.

I tend to think it is up to the scientists and engineers to make alternates viable. Only then will we se some real changes.

[sir-pinski]

If you look at history you usually find that it's only when it's financially beneficial or an immediate threat looms that things change. I don't think anything is going to happen in a lot of countries immediately and that's a big problem. The CO2 problem I think is not so much a problem now but apparently we are not yet feeling the effects of our current CO2 output. Apparently we won't see the effect for 10 years during which time we will have probably pumped more out. Shame really. Some countries have managed to use Renewable to a good extent e.g. Switzerland uses hydro and get's 60% electricity from it. This isn't widespread though.

[avemt1]

If you look at history you usually find that it's only when it's financially beneficial or an immediate threat looms that things change. This is only because of different opinions. If there is a world focus we can do anything we wanted to. It all comes down to politics, and when there is a clear and present danger we will come together. A semi-recent disaster was when the CFC TOXICOLOGY REPORT was released and the world made a ban on all aerosol and CFC products.

[megashawn]

A semi-recent disaster was when the CFC TOXICOLOGY REPORT was released and the world made a ban on all aerosol and CFC products.


Yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. You see, the above mentioned were merely used as propellants for hairspray and such. Decision time; Destroy the ozone or use different stuff for hairspray. Not a big deal there.

Now, with C02 levels, this is a big deal. Do you realize where this co2 is coming from? Things like electric companys, automobiles, and I'm sure other companys that are in place so that you and I can enjoy the level of comfort we do.

To just ban anything that emits large amounts of co2 would not work. If this happened, society as we know it would surely collapse. Not until a suitable alternative has been accepted (not found, because there are plenty) will we be able to place limitations on co2 output.

Or we could now, just no more internet, cable, sattelite, Mc Donalds, jobs, etc.

And the reason we have not switched to whatever other kind's of clean energy is due to the fact that people are making to much money off of petroleum. Honestly, it looks like they plan to squeeze every last penny of the oil before they decide to allow another technology to take over.

And the alternatives scare the power company. There are systems out there which could provide power you need, none more or less, and be contained within one's house. This means no monthly electric bill/water bill. Means job losses and someones not getting as fat.

So its a catch 22.

[damgo]

2 words:

Kyoto

Protocol

[FZ+]

4 words:
Only
Short
Term
Solution

2 more words:
USA
Reject

[quantumcarl]

This just in.

My Car Runs On Cannola Oil (http://www.biofuels.ca)

[damgo]

Originally posted by FZ+
4 words:
Only
Short
Term
Solution

2 more words:
USA
Reject LOL, I know -- my point was that the international community has shown willingness to come together and deal with this problem, despite the economic costs of doing so. The USA is being a **** about it, but the USA always does that at first. The problem is certainly not solved, but there is reason to hope it can/will be, before disaster strikes.

[GENIERE]

This is an excellent site for wind power. It covers all issues I can think of and it’s made me a believer (almost).

WindSite (http://www.windpower.dk/stat/unitsene.htm)

Regards

[megashawn]

Windpower is a nice idea, rather old too. There is one big problem with it however, and that being that it requires wind, which can be somewhat random.

If your going to rely on it, I'd atleast ask for them to hook up a nice sprocket on the fan blade so you can attach a bike to it when the wind dies out.

Hey, thats it. The solution to all our problems. Unemployment gone and energy crisis solved. Plus we can get people in shape.

First, we need a Wal-Mart sized building, thousands of bikes, chains and sprockets. Then we need a good size generator for each bike. Pay people by the kw-hour they produce.

Of course in years to come we might end up with a population of really powerfull legged people and weak armed.

hehe, better then perpetual motion, atleast it could work.

[FZ+]

Or better yet, we can run generators off the heat output of human beings, keeping them in vats to maximise efficiency. We can then use humans as batteries! To keep them docile, and to maintain our side of the bargain, we can maintain whole generations on a virtual reality interface in which they can live their lifes unaware. Let's call it the "Lattice". [;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
LOL, I know -- my point was that the international community has shown willingness to come together and deal with this problem, despite the economic costs of doing so. The USA is being a **** about it, but the USA always does that at first. The problem is certainly not solved, but there is reason to hope it can/will be, before disaster strikes. I think the USA's reason for rejecting it (it being vastly unfair to the US) was a good one.

[damgo]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think the USA's reason for rejecting it (it being vastly unfair to the US) was a good one. I have heard this, but I have also heard knowledgeable people (not green-freaks [;)] ) claim that it was clearly an unreasonable move on the US's part. Can you elaborate on how it was unfair?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
I have heard this, but I have also heard knowledgeable people (not green-freaks [;)] ) claim that it was clearly an unreasonable move on the US's part. Can you elaborate on how it was unfair? Sure. HERE (http://www.chooseclimate.org/climatetrain/protocol.html) is a link listing the targeted emissions. Essentially the US would agree to produce 7% less of a number of gases than it did in 1990. All of Europe would reduce its level by 8% below 1990.

What makes it unreasonable is that developing countries such as China have no emissions targets at all. With their rate of economic growth, their pollution rates are expected to rise very quickly in the near future.

So actually, the treaty is about as unfair to Europe as it is to the USA. It also would allow these countries to use substances like CFS's that western countries have already completely eliminated. It heavily favors developing countries.

[XX]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Lurch, since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE.

No, it doesn't: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid304.php

And those values/efficiencies are consistent with what professors have told me.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by XX
No, it doesn't: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid304.php

And those values/efficiencies are consistent with what professors have told me. Where exactly on that site do they explain how to MANUFACTURE hydrogen without electricity?

A fuel cell itself is pretty efficient - it turns nearly 100% of the energy from burning hydrogen into electricity. But those sites never explain where the hydrogen comes from. Its a crock.

[FZ+]

I think you can use the reaction of methane with steam, but that too produces carbon dioxide gas....

CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2 (Ni catalyst)

So... in the end, the net pollution may be the same as straightforwardly combusting methane gas, but in two stages.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think you can use the reaction of methane with steam, but that too produces carbon dioxide gas....

CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2 (Ni catalyst)

So... in the end, the net pollution may be the same as straightforwardly combusting methane gas, but in two stages.

Also, in a situation where methane gas is already being combusted for some other porpose, this technique could be employed without adding to the CO2 output.

[FZ+]

Huh? What do you mean?

I am saying that in the long term, this equates to normal methane combustion (and I don't know how much methane we have left...)

see:

CH4 + H2O + 2O2 -> CO + 3H2 + 2O2 -> 3H2O + CO2

is identical in terms of pollution to:

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

Simply adding a H2O that is returned at the end.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by FZ+
Huh? What do you mean?

Only that the process requires burning methane at 1100[sup]o[sup]C, which produces a lot of heat. This heat could be used to heat water, or perform any other function for which methane is normally used (even to generate electricity!). The Hydrogen would then only be released as a byproduct of methane-burning that was going to take place anyway. Yes, it will produce some CO2, but only as much as would have been realeased by burning the methane in the first place. Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 that would have been released to produce electricity in the usual way is not because the electricity is produced through fuel cells.

[FZ+]

Wait... I don't quite agree. With Hess's law, you can't get more energy out of the reaction by spacing it out. In fact, you end up losing more because you have inefficiency at each step in the process...

[username]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Fission is NOT dangerous
Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :(

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by username
Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :( Actually, fusion only creates helium.

And what do you mean by "dangerous"? A fission reaction creates heat and undesirably waste products. So does a chemical reaction involving coal. The difference is the waste from fission is contained.

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by username
Fission and fusion are both very dangerous they both produce large amounts of waste for starters. I just hope the fusion reactor experiments going on around the world are not to help make more neutron bombs :(

I think you are mistaken. Fission is potentially dangerous and fusion isn't unless you start doing stupid things with it. Most fusion experiements use a tokamak configuration to contain the plasma. If fo some reason the containment failer then you would just end up with the plasma dispersing. You may end up with some damage to the reactor but this is only a financial issue not safety. However fusion will produce some waste from neutron absorbtion. The reactor walls will absorb the neutrons so the reactor itself may become mildly radioactive but this I think is only a concern when it comes to decommisioning. As for neutron bombs - not going to happen from a fusion reactor.

As I have already commented fission is currently very very safe in developed countries. It would take a very determined individual to cause an accident as there are so many safety overrides in place. Admittedly the waste issue is a problem but given the leaps we have made in the last 100 years I am fairly confident that we will find a solution to the waste problem in the next few hundred.

[username]

The US DOD has poured billions into so called fusion reactor experiments now they have there very own, I guess this is to study fusion reactions for devloping ever more lethal neutron bombs.
btw: they still have a stockpile of neutron warheads for artillary shells from the 80's. Let's hope they don't make (have not made) any more of these enhanced radiation weapon's (ERW's)!

[damgo]

^^^ Hey, all USA-bashing is required to go in the Politics forum... it's in the PF charter. Personally, I don't care how many more neutron bombs the DoD invents. Once you have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate entire countries, a few more are no big deal.

Back on the point, listen to russ & sir-pinksi ...

[username]

Originally posted by damgo
^^^ Hey, all USA-bashing is required to go in the Politics forum... it's in the PF charter. Personally, I don't care how many more neutron bombs the DoD invents. Once you have enough nuclear weapons to annihilate entire countries, a few more are no big deal.

Back on the point, listen to russ & sir-pinksi ...

Neutron bombs only destroy organic life ( not like thermonukes and fission bombs ) they do not leave much residual radiation. You could say a small neutron bomb would be more humane? than say a daisy cutter. It's a slippery slope in my opinion.

I agree that in theory a fusion reactor could be ALOT more enviromentally friendly than a fission reactor and eleminates dangers of meltdowns etc. I think what is happening with ITER is amazing, and I cant fault it.

[FZ+]

Actually, I'd prefer the nukes to be as messy as possible. The cleaner our opportunities for mass destruction become, the worse off the world is in terms of stability. If I had my say, we would install bombs to automatically launch at the president's exact location the moment we launch the missiles at anybody else. Then we can be sure the folks in charge would be alot more careful...[:D]

[damgo]

Yes, cleary we must construct.... a Doomsday Machine!

[sir-pinski]

mmmmmm .... Doomsday machines [:D]. How about a black hole generator? Might not be so quick though (depending on the size of the black hole). A good one would be an airborn version of something like Ebola but of course that would most likely kill us all. Although it's not a doomsday device I like the idea of Tesla's Deathray - we could point it at our leaders instead of the bombs. [6)].

Back on the topic of the thread :) : Personally I think hydro is probably the best bet for electricity generation. It's usually more predicatable than most alternative sources and can generate a lot of power. Of course you have ecological damage with the dams but then almost anything like this will do. I don't think most people consider this issue when they consider alternative sources i.e. the ecological damage. It's a balancing act really I think.

[russ_watters]

North America is pretty well hydro'd out. Its a real battle to get even one more small dam built. We could dam up Niagra though...

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
mmmmmm .... Doomsday machines [:D]. How about a black hole generator? Might not be so quick though (depending on the size of the black hole). A good one would be an airborn version of something like Ebola but of course that would most likely kill us all. Although it's not a doomsday device I like the idea of Tesla's Deathray - we could point it at our leaders instead of the bombs. [6)].

Just a note here: I recently saw a documentary about information uncovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems that Kruchev [spelling?] wanted to build a doomsday machine - a nuclear bomb the size of the Queen Mary; a ship that is one giant bomb. It would automatically detonate if radiation levels were detected in excess of some limit. Luckily the people around him talked him out of the idea.

Back on the topic of the thread :) : Personally I think hydro is probably the best bet for electricity generation. It's usually more predicatable than most alternative sources and can generate a lot of power. Of course you have ecological damage with the dams but then almost anything like this will do. I don't think most people consider this issue when they consider alternative sources i.e. the ecological damage. It's a balancing act really I think.

I think low head hydro still offers potential...if you'll forgive the pun. I have a seasonal creek of significant size and have investigated this quite a bit. The Banki Cross Flow Turbine is inexpensive and relatively easy to build, and it yields pretty good efficiency even under very low head [the distance the water falls] conditions...as low as four or even three feet; As good as 70% efficient under ideal conditions such as with ten feet of head. It can be constructed out of steel pipes and other common fab materials. Information can be found at Oregon State University in the Civil Engineering documents. If anyone is interested PM me and I will get the document number for you. The northwest is riddled with low head 30 – 100 GPS water sources that it seems are going to waste. It seems to me that if done properly this energy could be tapped. But I can tell you that a lot of practical problems do exist. Getting permits is one of them. I needed no less than 27 permits for my own creek…whoops…if it was year round. It seems that seasonal creeks escape some of the problems. But then of course the pay off is extended and the economic justification becomes more difficult. There is one guy near Eugene Oregon that has his own power plant that uses a Francis Turbine - a serious investment but very efficient for the twenty foot range and high flow. He pulls down about $10,000 a month reselling power during a good winter. I am sure his bad months are also pretty good

EDIT: Also, if anyone gets interested in this, walk lightly. I found that sometimes if no one asks, no one knows "there should be a law". Asking too many questions can create obstacles. Do your own research and know the law yourself. Some people just love to make new laws.

[sir-pinski]

Just found out today that Norway generates about 80-90% of it's electricity from Hydro. Have to be fairly impressed with that :)

[sheldon]

I am trying to think of better or improved sources. I have been reading all of your ideas and they are great. I would like to add some of my ideas. I believe first of all, we are way too inefficient. We must find better ways to do things! I am not talking about your cell phone or your home refrigerator, I believe we are actually doing well in these areas. I am talking about industrial America. Electric motors, machine friction, transformer loss, Steel production, etc. These places could be more efficient but there are power contracts that lock these places in, so they just pay the bill. The only thing there really worried about is if they go over the kW max limit, then they will get penalized. There is nothing in place for them to be more efficient because their bill is the same every month no matter if they lower their consumption. If this were a different plan then the plants would try and be as efficient as possible.

My theory is this when you purchase electricity for a light bulb for example, you are using it for the light but you get an unwanted byproduct, which is heat of course. You paid for both and are only using one. The heat from that light bulb escapes back into the universe. Now that I have said that, I consider heat as a waste product that should be recycled rather than just allowed too escape. This theory goes across the field of devices and can work to improve our overall power consumption. This is the technology that I believe needs improved upon, http://www.hi-z.com/ there are some great examples of machines that can run more efficient.

But even if we become more efficient we still need to fix our pollution problem. I am still pondering that
[;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sheldon
These places could be more efficient but there are power contracts that lock these places in, so they just pay the bill. The only thing there really worried about is if they go over the kW max limit, then they will get penalized. There is nothing in place for them to be more efficient because their bill is the same every month no matter if they lower their consumption. If this were a different plan then the plants would try and be as efficient as possible. That is flat out not true. When your bill is a quarter of a million a month you are VERY energy conscious. And there are no such constant use contracts. The only part of the rate that can be negotiated is the generation charge (in states with deregulation). But thats still a per kWh rate. Electric rates are published on the net. Look one up. ( www.peco.com for example)

My dad makes a living saving companies money on their utility bills and I worked for him during high school and college. Its an interesting business.

[sheldon]

I stand corrected, I was told about service contracts at a steel plant I worked at. What exactly does your father do to improve company energy consumption?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sheldon
I stand corrected, I was told about service contracts at a steel plant I worked at. What exactly does your father do to improve company energy consumption? Not much. He deals almost exclusively with the billing aspect. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania, electricity used in manufacturing is sales tax exempt. If someone at a big plant doesn't know that (or they change their amount of manufacturing) that can equal a ton of money - and a 3 year refund of taxes paid.

Rates is another big issue - there is only one rate for residential users (not including generation choice), but for business, there are usually at least half a dozen plus other options. Most companies don't know the difference and have no idea if they are on the best one for them (do you really think PECO is going to tell you if you can save money on another rate?).

Then there's deregulation - the generation part of your bill can be paid to another company. At first, you could save a LOT of money by buying the power from another company, but not anymore. But if you are a big company, you can still have people bid on the generation rate. And coosing a different supplier is the one thing that residential users can do to lower their rates (in states with deregulation).

Finally, there's billing errors - utility companies make a LOT of errors. I recently had a client (I design HVAC systems, but because of my utility experience I answer questions about utilities too) send me a gas bill that was $17,000 when we had expected their gas heat to cost $3,000 a month. If they had bothered to READ the bill, they would have seen $14,000 of "previous unpaid balance." Oops. I still don't know if it was PECO's mistake or if my client just screwed up, but either way, people just don't bother to look at the bill to find errors - even if they are simple ones.

For energy conservation, one client of my dad's has a dying manufacturing plant in Philly. Empty warehouses that have tens of kW of lights burning (or better yet, the lights are burned out and the ballasts are buring 3x as much as the lights would) [click] $1,000/ month. Or how about a thermostat on an assembly line that has one unit calling for heat, one 20 feet away calling for a/c, one 20 feet from that calling for heat....

Bottom line is my dad makes a lot of money because people don't think about their utility bills - until he convinces them to have him think about their utilities for them.

[megashawn]

This is the technology that I believe needs improved upon, http://www.hi-z.com/ there are some great examples of machines that can run more efficient.

That is pretty interesting. I didn't realize thermo tech was availible to the public.

I imagine they work much like a solar panel, as in the more heat = more electricity. Do you know how water resistant these are? Seems you could place them inside of water heaters, reclaim a good bit of juice.

One thing I know about big companys, it seems when they encounter a problem, they just throw money at it until it goes away.

[sheldon]

actualy they work on the INDIFFERANCE in temperature rather than the level of temp. If you have a 200 degree indifferance your at an optimal level, thats where you get into thermaldynamics. You need to keep one side cool and the other hot. They use these in deep space exploration with a radioactive source that while decaying produces minimal heat but in deep space it is very cold, hence indifferance in temp. As you know there isn't much light in space to use solorpanels for power. The concept is quit simple, there is no such thing as absolute zero, so there is heat everywhere hence energy everywhere, we just need to tap it and this is one way[a)]

[sheldon]

oh I am sorry misunderstood, yes they do work like solorpanels in that way. You can add voltage via series and amperage via parrallel I believe.

[LURCH]

I think geothemal has great potential, but I'm a bit hazy as to the mechanisms involved. Would it be necessary to punch a hole down to the mantle, then allow heat to come to the surface to make steam and drive turbines, etc? And if so, wouldn't this release as much CO2 as just burning coal to make the steam?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
I think geothemal has great potential, but I'm a bit hazy as to the mechanisms involved. Would it be necessary to punch a hole down to the mantle, then allow heat to come to the surface to make steam and drive turbines, etc? And if so, wouldn't this release as much CO2 as just burning coal to make the steam? Yes, you would have to drill to the mantle if there is no surface source. And since drilling to the mantle is EXTREMELY difficult, its not likely to happen any time soon.

Iceland gets almost all of its electricity from geothermal, but they have lots of naturally occurring sources.

No, turning water into steam does not generate CO2. Steam is just heated water.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, you would have to drill to the mantle if there is no surface source. And since drilling to the mantle is EXTREMELY difficult, its not likely to happen any time soon.

Iceland gets almost all of its electricity from geothermal, but they have lots of naturally occurring sources.

No, turning water into steam does not generate CO2. Steam is just heated water.

LOL no no! I meant, punching a hole straight to the mantle would release CO2, just like volcanism. Wouldn't the amount be just about the same as if you had burned coal to get the heat? Is there any way of running the water down the hole, and allowing it to expand and come back up all in an airtight housing that does not allow the escape of any gases (other than the steam, of course)?

[sheldon]

I have an idea for an alternative power source, but it is way out there and was wondering what you think of it. I remember reading about Nicola Tesla's earthquake machine, heres a link I looked up http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Tesla.html I am unsure of its accuracy but leads to the point I would like to make. Basicly the earth is resonating at a specific frequency like a bell here is another link http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jbstoneking/jbspage7.htm
and with his oscillator running at the resonant freq of the earth would it be possible to load the machine down without causeing it to stop? I believe the power source that drives it, is from the earths natural vibration caused via cosmic energy bombarding the earth all the time. Like I said the idea is out there.

[LogicalAtheist]

Here's my idea for energy. Apples....

It's a common physical statement that the US could run all it's power for about an hour with the energy is just one apple.

So let's make a machine that turns apples into energy!

[sheldon]

Are you making fun of me?

[plus]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Here's my idea for energy. Apples....

It's a common physical statement that the US could run all it's power for about an hour with the energy is just one apple.

So let's make a machine that turns apples into energy!


I suppose you could use the hydrogen within the apples to do fusion with..

[LogicalAtheist]

Think about it. If one apple can run the country for an entire hour - why is the energy from an apple doesn't keep a human very energized at all?

We're such poor extractors of energy. Off of maybe 5 dollars of apples we could live our entire lives.

[sheldon]

who stated that you can run the country for one hour on one apple?

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by sheldon
who stated that you can run the country for one hour on one apple?

Science.

[sheldon]

oh

[avemt1]

Science. You come back with a bleak an vague statement that does nothing to inform the public.

Here is a better expalination. SOme one took the mass of an average apple and put it into this equation.
E=mc(squared)
They then did the math on how long it would take for the energy of the apple to be used up.

Now, it is entirely impossible to use all the energy of an apple. There will always be leftovers and wasted energy.
So there you have it. THe explanation for the ignarant and the special people.

[sheldon]

Originally posted by avemt1

So there you have it. THe explanation for the ignarant and the special people.

That was necessary to say[s(]

[megashawn]

That was necessary to say

Hey man, don't sweat it. In a way, everyone is ignorant until they learn. The kid touching the stove is ignorant until he does it. I was ignorant about thermal generators until you turned me on to them.

Ahh, but if none of that comforts, at least you can gain a lil bit of pleasure from know that you can spell ignorant.


And for the record, I've read a good bit about Tesla since our last encounter, and it does seem like he's figured out exactly what your talking about. A trip to his museum where ever he's from would be cool.

Seems something similar to an rc-car radio control should do the trick, but I'm not real sure right now.

LA, an apple? Come on.

[sheldon]

I won't sweat my own ignorance[:D] Ignorance is bliss[6)]