Let's Talk About Energy Sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seth0Mitchell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Sources
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the future of energy sources, exploring various types of energy such as nuclear, oil, solar, and hydrogen. Participants consider the roles of different engineering disciplines and the potential of emerging technologies in energy production and storage.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express optimism about nuclear power being a significant part of the future energy landscape, citing its potential and the need to overcome public mistrust.
  • Others argue that while nuclear power has advantages, there are concerns about safety, waste management, and public perception that need to be addressed.
  • There are discussions about the potential of antimatter as an energy source, although some participants clarify that current technology does not support its practical use.
  • Several participants highlight the importance of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, but note challenges related to their inconsistency and the need for effective energy storage solutions.
  • One participant mentions the German approach to generating synthetic natural gas from excess power, suggesting it could enhance energy storage capabilities.
  • There is a proposal for using solar power to produce hydrogen, with some participants believing it could become a dominant energy carrier in the future despite current costs.
  • Questions are raised about the viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier compared to direct electricity use, particularly in mobile applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that nuclear power has potential but express differing views on its safety and public acceptance. There is no consensus on the best energy source for the future, with multiple competing views on the roles of nuclear, renewable, and fossil fuel alternatives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in current technologies and the need for cultural shifts in energy consumption. There are unresolved questions regarding the efficiency and practicality of various energy sources and storage methods.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying energy policy, engineering, environmental science, and anyone curious about the future of energy technologies and their implications.

Seth0Mitchell
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I'm curious to know what you all think of the future of energy. What type of energy do you think has the most promise for the future? What role do you think the various engineering disciplines will play?

I'm really looking forward to the future of this whole antimatter factor haha.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
OK Let's talk.
What do you think will be the role of, picking one, oil, as an energy source in the future?
 
Antimatter factory? No such thing exists nor are there any plans for one. The thing is with antimatter is that it takes more energy to produce it than it gives (though it would be an almost perfect medium for energy storage).

Considering the problems of future peak oil I would expect to see a necessary change in cultural attitudes reducing energy consumption alongside; increases in gas and coal usage, investment in renewables and construction of more nuclear reactors.
 
Last edited:
By far the biggest piece of our energy future will have to be nuclear power.
 
russ_watters said:
By far the biggest piece of our energy future will have to be nuclear power.
This is a reason why I am extremely jealous of the French, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France" mean that when we actually need to invest in fossil fuel alternatives it will take years to even get started.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has to be nuclear, we need to get over the mistrust of it as a fuel source.
 
The only real player, at this stage is nuclear. The Germans seem to have a neat trick that may change a lot though. I read that they are working on scalable technology to use excess power to generate natural gas from Water(hydrogen) and CO2.
Man made Natural gas, may be the missing storage piece that could push alternate energy devices over the hump. The real problem with most of the alternative energy methods, is their inconsistency. The wind does not always blow, and the sun does not always shine. Separating the energy capture from the energy demand with a storage medium. The infrastructure is already in place to distribute natural gas, and we can already convert transport to run on it. One additional thing, If I can make methane, making more complex hydrocarbons may not be out of the question.
 
Also, a way of producing hydrogen cheaply and efficently to run our cars on. Anybody heard of any exciting new prospects in this field?
 
I want to know more about why people have such a negative view of nuclear power, I mean obviously because of nuclear accidents and the problem of spent fuel storage, but I am a firm believer that we can solve any problem thrown at us. I believe that we can reduce the chance of having a nuclear accident to make it so insignificant that it would be crazy not to have nuclear power as, at least, a reliable supplement to other forms of energy production. I have read of so many innovations in nuclear power production, e.g. thorium fueled reactors, better reactor design. But everyone is afraid of it. What say others?
 
  • #10
Use of solar power to produce hydrogen..

The tech is already in place (in Canada), but is xpensive..

But i stroingly believe it'll take over in near future..
 
  • #11
moogull said:
I want to know more about why people have such a negative view of nuclear power, I mean obviously because of nuclear accidents and the problem of spent fuel storage, but I am a firm believer that we can solve any problem thrown at us. I believe that we can reduce the chance of having a nuclear accident to make it so insignificant that it would be crazy not to have nuclear power as, at least, a reliable supplement to other forms of energy production. I have read of so many innovations in nuclear power production, e.g. thorium fueled reactors, better reactor design. But everyone is afraid of it. What say others?

I suppose this spins out of the notion that there are other alternatives (wind, solar, & hydro) that don't have the environmental issues offsetting them. People who haven't studied these things assume that they can be used in the same way gas, coal, and uranium is; to make electricity. Unfortunately, they just aren't competititve. Wind works really well in some areas, but that's rare.
 
  • #12
chetanladha said:
Use of solar power to produce hydrogen..

The tech is already in place (in Canada), but is xpensive..

But i stroingly believe it'll take over in near future..

Why not just convert strictly to electricity? Why use the H2 as an energy carrier? If you mean for mobile/auto than why not batteries?
 
  • #13
Mr Boom said:
Why not just convert strictly to electricity? Why use the H2 as an energy carrier? If you mean for mobile/auto than why not batteries?

Electricity needs to be used less than a second after it is created, otherwise it just goes to waste.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K