Alternative Source of Energy

[QreepyBORIS]

Fusion would be ideal. But, as of yet, there is no way to contain all of that energy. There is the Tokamak, a torus thing with a shitload of electromagnetic energy added to it, but we still don't know if it will be good enough.

You know what's funny? How would we test a fusion plant? If it didn't work, wouldn't we be REALLY fucked?

[petterminator]

Fusion would be ideal. But, as of yet, there is no way to contain all of that energy. There is the Tokamak, a torus thing with a shitload of electromagnetic energy added to it, but we still don't know if it will be good enough.

You know what's funny? How would we test a fusion plant? If it didn't work, wouldn't we be REALLY #$*#ed?

Ever heard of a hydrogen bomb? That's approximately what would happen...

[somerndmguy]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Orbital solar collecters sound like a nice idea...
Maybe if we concentrated that energy and beamed it down back to earth to like, this huge dish like thing...

That would be like those Microwave Power Plants from SimCity...
Thank you, Maxis.

However, I suppose it might heat up the earth by an atrocious amount... especially if a beam went stray.

[MonkeyFoo]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

That wouldn't heat the earth any extra, because the collector in orbit will collect rays that would otherwise reach the earth. Or at least that's one concept, to have a giant sort of mesh solar collector that doesn't make a noticeable impact shade-wise, but due to really really bigness, still collect massive energies. (lol, massive energies = oxymoron)

But that would cost a whole lot... a while back I read that someone had invented an inefficient solar paint, that generates a current from sunlight just like a traditional panel. I guess it must have still had cost problems, but that's how I would do it. Solar paint and solar shingles.

[FFR4EVA_00]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Way to bump an old thread.

The problem with solar power is that you won't be able to harness it often. This is especially a problem during the night, when lights are needed. The same goes with wind power: some times there is no wind at all. One could make a site with both wind turbines and solar panels, or, better yet, wind turbines with solar panels on them (a solar/wind turbine), so that one type could be harvested when the other isn't available. Still, this has two problems.

1) This method would still have questionable effieciency, and
2) There aren't many places that are very windy and sunny.

Plus, the speed at which the solar propellors on a supposed solar/wind turbine would probably effect the rate at which they could collect solar energy. In addition, there would be the manner of whether or not the turbine could have both solar and wind energy converters at the same time.

If it weren't so hard to collect renewable energy, then we would have no energy crisis to worry about (concerning the depletion of nonrenwable sources of energy).

[chickendude]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

What solar power needs to do, is use the power to constantly convert the energy into some kind of chemical preservable form. Whenever there is some sun out, it can save energy. For example, use it to extract Hydrogen from something and you could have hydrogen which you could reuse in a Fuel Cell.

The power is there, we just have to harness it.
Also, if we somehow hook up like.... the whole country on a really big electrical network, we could get solar power from like...arizona, where its always sunny. That's more of a vision for year 2200 though.

[Porkbutts]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

The perpetual energy machine was pretty good. But I don't think perpetual is possible. More like efficient, or saving. We are in fact, already doing that as of today with hybrid cars. Partially powered by electricity, they automatically turn off when they're stationary so that saves more energy. Let's say you're going over a hill. You use energy to go up the hill, and when you go down, energy is compiled, which serves to overcome the next hill or w/e.

Another good idea would be environmental energy usage. Using something that is really abundant in the atmosphere like hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel has been thought about, and it'd be a great idea, except hydrogen is really unstable so our cars would go BOOM. If we could power our cars with pollution and have a byproduct of clean air, that'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

The ultimate idea is anti-matter fuel. Extremely powerful and has tons of energy, but it's extremely unstable. I think it was something like 1 quarter of a gram of anti-matter can destroy like a mile of anything in range.

[Porkbutts]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Oh and on a side note, we have created anti-matter. But we only have like on trillionth of a gram in our bank and it's cost A LOT of money...

The process is kind of a long one, but quite simply. You get a huge circular tube, about a couple miles long. We call this the particle accelerator, Then you collide atoms together. And for every 500,000 atoms collided, you'll get 1 atom of anti-matter.

[Gelsamel]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

I read the first post and this is my reply.

Personally I think what is going to happen is since the world is so addicted to oil is that they're going to get as much coal as they can from coal loaded countries and turn it into oil.

But hopefully that won't happen and they'll go nuclear power. Last year some famous green that I can't care if I remember his name or not who was originally against nuclear power (maybe rightfully since for a long time it was a bad industry). Said last year (or the year before) that everyone should revoke their problems against nuclear power as it is a clean efficient fuel source. There billions of tonnes of Uranium-238 (for you non-scientists it's the non-radioactive version) and turn it into Plotonium-239 and you can use that plotonium in fastbreeder neuclear reactors to create power (as well as more Plotonium from the Uranium!!). And don't have reservations because of Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island. Neuclear power is very very very safe. Compare the amount of accidents and deaths on planes/light/younameit and their frequency, and the fact that today they're even safer then ever (and back then it was just idiocy that caused it).

Also I think Hydrogen fuel cells will be a major contender as well.

Biomass and wind/solar power aren't really major contenders because of their inefficiency.

Assuming we don't use coal/nuclear/hydrogen/bio/solar energy. What will we use instead of oil-based heaters? One possibility is using the earths own heat, by drilling deep down into the earth. Assume this situation you also have to think about transport - economy and trade. How will that be effected.

I think if major companies don't start to slowly switch over to these other means of enegy (like car companies introducing more cheaper electric or maybe hydrogen powered cars) then there will be a massive crisis when oil suddenly runs out and they're going to have to change energy sources quickly which may prove drastic to the economy of any company/country who didn't take the initiative to switch early.

~Gelsamel

Edit:

Another good idea would be environmental energy usage. Using something that is really abundant in the atmosphere like hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel has been thought about, and it'd be a great idea, except hydrogen is really unstable so our cars would go BOOM. If we could power our cars with pollution and have a byproduct of clean air, that'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Actually it isn't really unstable at all. Me and my friend made a hydrogen fuel cell for a physics project a few years ago. And a better place to get the hydrogen is water, obviously.

Also on the subject of anti-matter. There is no way in the world we'd make enough of it to use it as an actuall fuel source. But if we were somehow able to gather it (that is it there is some out there created by activity on other planets - maybe jupiter) then it is a possibility.

According to wikipedia; "The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the equation E=mc²). In contrast, burning a kilogram of gasoline produces 4.2×107 J, and nuclear fusion of a kilogram of hydrogen would produce 2.6×1015 J." (ON a side note Nuclear fission is impossible without about 20kgs (critical mass) of material to sustain a super-chain reaction [I just forgot the real name of that lol] - also fission produces much less energy then fusion, but fusion requires great amounts of energy [heat] which ironically is only reacable through an explosion caused by nuclear fission).

The problem is how do you harvest such massive amounts of energy?

Another idea is to use anti-mater as a catalyst in nuclear reactions. But I'm too lazy to delve into that.

(also another issue which isn't that big of an issue is it takes ALOT more energy to create anti-matter then the amount of energy an equivilent amount of anti-matter generates when combined with normal matter, but since the reaction would be burst, yet the energy we put into creating it would be over time it isn't such a big deal other then the fact it takes forever)
Edit2:

The power is there, we just have to harness it.
Also, if we somehow hook up like.... the whole country on a really big electrical network, we could get solar power from like...arizona, where its always sunny. That's more of a vision for year 2200 though.

Actually a good idea would be to flatten some land and hook up a giant series of solar panels in alaska (or the south pole as well) where it basically never turns night for half the year because of it's position of the earth. Though for a big complex and where it is located it would be hard to preform matinence. That and the fact it's useless for half a year just about.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Plotonium? Come on. Were Neptunium and Uranium not big enough giveaways that these elements are named after outer planets?

But spelling aside, nuclear power is not as ideal as you make it out to be. One, why should we forget about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? Sure, nuclear power is the most heavily regulated power source due to the potential disasters, but Chernobyl happened. If it can happen once, it can happen again, and I DON'T want a nuclear reactor in my town if it's going to, despite how much I appreciate their efficiency (~30-35%, which is REALLY high by power plant standards). Two, environmentally, it's incredibly draining on the areas around it. You can't just build a nuclear plant anywhere; you have to have a lake nearby. And to be able to harvest adequate amounts of energy, you have to pump a LOT of heat into that lake. So much that it would quickly kill off anything that lived there. As such, artificial lakes must be built to sustain the power plant, too.

Nuclear power plant engineering is practically dead today, and it's because nobody wants it.

Regarding wind and solar power, they're a helluvalot more efficient than mechanical power sources. We don't have to make anything to put into it, and we get energy out. Sure, in a wind turbine you have moving parts that lose energy to friction and whatnot, but there are many more parts in other power plants. The only problem with them is that they don't produce all that much energy even with their good efficiencies.

Also, everyone just forget antimatter, okay? It's a terrible idea, it's absurdly dangerous, and relatively inefficient. We will never use it in our lifetimes or for many to come. Got it? Good.

And sure, there may be an oil crisis, but it won't come for a long, long time. Unless, of course, stupid politicians keep us from using the vast, rich reserves that are in our own backyard...

Yes, we'll ultimately need to change energy sources. However, oil's doing us just fine right now, and you can't forget that science isn't the limiting factor in such a change (we have plenty of options already); it's economics.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Gelsamel]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Plotonium? Come on. Were Neptunium and Uranium not big enough giveaways that these elements are named after outer planets?

Yeh sorry was typing too fast xD. (anything gramatical is just because I suck at english).

One, why should we forget about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? Sure, nuclear power is the most heavily regulated power source due to the potential disasters, but Chernobyl happened.

Depending on what theory you believe Cherbobyl was due to idiocy or faulty production. (Also note that there weren't any failsafes in place for an accident so when disaster struck it turned out really bad).

3 Mile Island - the same thing, there was technical fault and idiocy to blame.

Both of these systems have improved. The awareness of the problems with these reactors have shot up since this accident. And equipment has been refined to insure that this never happens again (and the odd chance it does, there are many good failsafes to contain damage to a minimum).

As for lakes, I think building artificial lakes is worth it.

Nuclear power plant engineering is practically dead today, and it's because nobody wants it.

Because people are afraid of another Chernobyl.

Regarding wind and solar power, they're a helluvalot more efficient than mechanical power sources.

Yes I phrased that wrong. What I meant is that for them to be worth anything at all you would have to fill feilds upon feilds upon feilds with wind turbines. And the same with solar power.

Also, everyone just forget antimatter, okay? It's a terrible idea, it's absurdly dangerous, and relatively inefficient. We will never use it in our lifetimes or for many to come. Got it? Good.

Hey, it's funny when people talk like it is feasible within a few hundred years!

[Reach]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

Guidois wrong. Gelsamel mentioned some very true things on Nuclear power *props*.

There are over 100 nuclear power plants in the United states. How many accidents have there been? One (and recall the date). How many nuclear accidents have there been in the past 20 years? None. How many people DIED in Chernobyl? Like 4. And let's also recall the date. How many died in 3 mile island? none.

How many people have died because of coal mining? Coal produces more than 50% of the states power.

Let's also recall the conditions chernobyl was operating under.

Why Nuclear power? No air pollutants. Why wouldn't you want to live near one? Are you crazy? So you'll live by a coal powerplant or any of that other crap? Wonderful! Did you know you'll receive more radiation than you would get sitting on the reactor of a nuclear powerplant? What about all of the other pollutants you are breathing in from coal power. You make it sound like it has some devastating effect on the enviroment directly around it too, which isn't true. It has it's effects, but take into account everything and you'll find it has the lowest impact on the environment EASILY.

Nuclear waste is now recyclable. *gasp*

Reliable energy source for the future.

And nuclear energy isn't dead. Actually, as of 2006 even, Bush is supporting nuclear power. "The industry anticipates building 12 to 15 new nuclear plants by 2015."

Gogogo nuclear power! I fully support it. Wind power is a useless piece of crap. Solar power has potential. The oil crisis might come faster than you think o_O (50-100 years).

[irrationalkillin]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

I don't know if this makes sence, but about the solar collectors on satelites couldn't we theoretically beam the energy collected to Earth with some sort of waves similar to radio waves but considerably stronger? I actually have no idea if this is even slightly feasable but it seems logical to me at lease. Aside from solar power, I feel the power of nuclear fussion should be harnessed due to its amount of energy produced. As Reach said, it may be safer then we think it is.

[Lightknight924]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

We need a perpetual energy machine. A machine that produces energy and at the same time, uses its own energy to power itself. DOESNT THAT JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!

One flaw, how does it start?

[clocktower]

Re: Alternative Source of Energy

lol