Alternative Source of Energy

[petterminator]

OK, starting off with the temperature in space:

In general, temperature in space lies around minus 271 degrees celsius (don't ask me about Fahrenheit), which is a few degrees higher than the absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin).

Now, since the sun radiates huge amounts of energy in all directions, any surface facing it will be heated up a lot, which is one reason why space travel is so difficult, not only must you be able to withstand vacuum and intense cold, you have to be able to take care of a lot of heat too.

That about heat in space.

This produces 26 million times more energy than the combustion of methane.

Depending on what? Energy inserted?

You get an awful lot of waste from nuclear fission, first when mining the uranium, then during the production of the fuel (enrichment), then the byproducts from the actual fission, then finally the reactor itself, which after x number of years in large parts has become highly radioactve.

The first two problems are mostly problems in Russia and other countries "far away", where the mining and enrichment takes place, so most people wouldn't know about it. As for the others, we simply aren't there yet. Mostly, anyway.

Another possibility for a renewable energy source are wave-power plants. There are several possible ways to harness the energy created by waves, but I don't think it's being done anywhere on a very large scale, maybe because the technology hasn't existed for very long.

*points up* Kinda long for a first post, don't you think? Oh well, I got a little carried away...

[Cenright]

This produces 26 million times more energy than the combustion of methane.

Depending on what? Energy inserted?

They are both exothermic reactions, and if you measure the energy input to the energy output (aka the change in energy) in 'Joules of energy per reaction', Then you get 26 million times more Joules of energy per atom reacted. (Both reactions lose energy, and that probably a higher percentage, but you are still getting way more energy.)

You get an awful lot of waste from nuclear fission, first when mining the uranium, then during the production of the fuel (enrichment), then the byproducts from the actual fission, then finally the reactor itself, which after x number of years in large parts has become highly radioactve.

This is where Nuclear Fusion would be helpful. There just needs to be more technological advancements.

*points up* Kinda long for a first post, don't you think? Oh well, I got a little carried away...

Not at all. It is nice to get new people (who actually think) in the Forums.

[IronMonk]

amen to that. i personally think that a motor created using rare earth magnets would be an excelent way to produce energy. if built on a large enough scale it would be creat a very large amount of energy. plus it wouldn't require any resources to keep it running.

[petterminator]

This produces 26 million times more energy than the combustion of methane.

Depending on what? Energy inserted?

They are both exothermic reactions, and if you measure the energy input to the energy output (aka the change in energy) in 'Joules of energy per reaction', Then you get 26 million times more Joules of energy per atom reacted. (Both reactions lose energy, and that probably a higher percentage, but you are still getting way more energy.)

It's way harder to get even one fission reaction than to combust a lot of methane, though...

I suppose that the energy you are counting in those figures is the thermal energy. Because, as you probably know, there is no "change" in energy, but rather just energy going from one form to another. In the methane combustion, it's the bonding energy in oxygen and methane that gets converted into thermal energy (a lot of it is used up moments later forming the new bonds incarbon dioxide and hydrogen gas though), and in the uranium fission, a small bit of the mass of the uranium atom gets converted to thermal energy (using E=mc^2). The total energy is always constant, though.

Anyways, nuclear fusion would be a really good idea, if we could get it to work properly, and safely. But until we can make fusion powerplants ourselves, why not used the natural one we orbit? (the sun, that is)

[Thingy]

There are 2 problems with using the sun as an energy source. The first problem is the expense of putting up solar panels to get the energy. But if we needed energy THAT badly, money really wouldnt matter that much. Secondly, it is actually a very inefficent way of gathering energy, the main problem is the earth's atmosphere. Orbital power stations could solve that problem; but then how would you get the energy to the ground, drop a line?

Right now, I think the best thing to do is to put more money into fusion power research here on Earth. You don't have to worry about getting the power where it needs to go, and it could also help stimulate research in other areas.

Also, does anyone know the current progress on developing a room temperature superconductor? That alone would make almost all of the world's energy problems disappear...

[ramonesfan]

dont get mad if someone put this

ok, get this recently scientists have discovered anti-matter while testing the big bang thory( the product of there test was matter and ant-matter ) and when anti-matter touches any kind of matter it annihalates making a huge amount of energy if scientists could find a way to stabalize anti-matter better and control the annihalations it could create so much energy like 1 gram of anti-matter is enough to run a small city for something like a week, so tell me what u think of that idea^^^

[Chrissi]

I couldn't read it. You have atrocious grammar. Write it out again but speak normally and don't tell us not to get mad - why would anyone get mad? Just state the facts.

[LEGO]

I couldn't read it. You have atrocious grammar. Write it out again but speak normally and don't tell us not to get mad - why would anyone get mad? Just state the facts.

Speak? This is the internet buddy.

[Chrissi]

I couldn't read it. You have atrocious grammar. Write it out again but speak normally and don't tell us not to get mad - why would anyone get mad? Just state the facts.

Speak? This is the internet buddy.

Yeah, wrong word, sorry.

[CalibreneGuru]

The anti-matter sounds like a good idea, if all that you said is true.

Also, I have heard of places running off of lightening energy. Some where out in some desert on this huge plateau they have a lot of rods sticking in to the sky (I'm assuming it storms alot there). Tidal energy is also a major form of energy in France.

[Varia]

But if we needed energy THAT badly, money really wouldnt matter that much

Let me assure you, it would.

[DracIV]

Anti-matter is a BAD idea right now. Anti-matter is officially the most expensive material in existance. I mean, it is insane how much this stuff costs. According to Discover Magazine, anti-matter costs $1,750 TRILLION for one single OUNCE. It would be so insanely expensive to get any energy from this, not to mention needing hundreds of years for it to even be possible. Anti-matter = not so good right now

[zildjian133]

Why is it so expensive? How is created? Or however it exists.

[Nightstar]

You have to "Mine" anti matter. High up in the atmosphere, looking for anti-hydrogen atoms. It is a rediculous process, I am not sure if we have ever actually gotten an antimatter atom. just detected them. But, we do know they exist, the big bang gave off equal parts matter and antimatter. Now the cool thing about it, is that fusing 2 matter atoms results in about 1% potential energy release. Antimatter/matter is 100%.

As for solar, it costs about 15kUSD for a full house roofing gettup. Enough power to run your home. It pays for itself in about 10 years. The cool thing about solar is that any extra energy, not needed for your home, is put BACK into the grid, and the power company HAS to pay you for it. You could run your own power plant.
I imagine that with a geothermal heat/cooler and a great slab, and solar panels, you could never pay electric bills again.

There is no GOOD reason why everyone isn't using solar already. Plenty of political/monitary reasons, but no good ones. The government should install solar in the homes, as a loan. Imagine a solar US, Sexy. Like 70% of all the power plants wouldn't be needed.

I know a Geolegist that works for a/the oil company(ies). She says that there is a good chance we could get 250 more years out of the oil, if you include new technology, like deep sea drilling, and the reserves. I don't know if I believe that, but it doesn't matter. we should be off our oil guzzling. Anyone spent time in europe? they have fords there that get 80mpg, the same exact model, hp, and everything. But the ones here get 30. Because it is more profitable. Nasty.

that was way more than I bargained for.

[petterminator]

Well, actually, Anti-matter can be produced, but the problem is that along with the anti-matter comes it's matter counterpart, both at a huge cost of energy. Most often, they both are destroyed almost instantly, releasing that enourmous energy once again.