Can Alternative Energy Sources Meet Future U.S. Power Demand?

[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.

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]

Fossil fuels?

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 a lot 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 a lot 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.

 

[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

 

[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 that's 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!

 

[sheldon]

I really 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 really 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 really 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 really 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.

 

[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

 

[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).

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, that's 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.