Alternative fuel sources.

Let's be frank. Oil isn't going to last forever, nor is it the most efficient energy source available. I've been reading up on the more efficient energy sources and energy containment systems, so to begin, I'll throw in moon-based Helium-3 and antimatter into the fray to be picked apart. The helium-3 is found in relative abundance on the "light side of the moon" and is a highly energetic isotope which got that way by absorbing the sun's energy directly, without an atmosphere (and EDIT: We would use helium-3 in nuclear fusion reactions). The initial problem here is, well, the fact we're going to be mining the moon, the legal grey area things such as the moon occupy, and the potential for companies or countries to monopolize such operations.

Antimatter is, simply put, atoms with their charges reversed (negative electrons become positive positrons, positive protons become negative antiprotons) and when they come in contact with normal matter atoms, both of them "annihilate" and their rest masses are both converted into energy. Problem here is that antimatter takes huge amounts of energy to produce and the only places it occurs naturally are months' spacevoyages away from Earth. However, antimatter could theoretically be used as an energy STORAGE concept, so that might have a forseeable use.

Here's the thing though, as my father pointed out. Emerging technologies, in which the public is eager to accept and endorse, may not have the most thurough testing and in ten, twenty years' time, would turn out to have dangerous side effects. He used asbestos and thalidomide as examples, and did give me something to think about.


Anyway, what do you guys think?

There are currently 4 main sources of alternative energy:

Nuclear

Hydro

Solar

Wind.


Most people advocate using solely Wind and Solar. However, this has problems. There is a limit to how much power one can get from a solar cell (they currently cap at using 40% of the energy that hits them, and that's also the theoretical maximum, so it's unlikely that they'll get much better), and the process for manufacturing solar cells is not incredibly environmentally friendly. This means that you're using lots of time, money, space, and creating a decent amount of pollution in order to make powering the globe with nothing but solar anywhere near possible. The reality is that it just isn't a feasible source of lots of energy.

Wind suffers from similar problems with efficiency: you simply cannot get lots of power from wind turbines. You can get a decent amount, but nowhere near enough. Again, the theoretical maximum here is pretty low. In addition, windmills are a severe hazard to birds.

Hydro, however, is quite good. You get lots of power, and no pollution. Big problem here is, of course, limited places to get hydro power from. That ends up crippling it as a power source.

So, the last on the list, nuclear. I actually strongly endorse nuclear power. It's incredibly efficient, and very low-polluting. The big (and really, only) problem here is the waste. Reactors have been developed the use what is currently considered waste fuel to create more power (and lessen the amount of waste), but you still eventually end up with some pretty radioactive material left-over.

Now, given enough time the waste will stop being radioactive, but it does take time, and we don't have an indefinite amount of storage.


So, all four have some rather severe problems. I, personally, advocate a combination of all four. This serves to reduce the power needed from nuclear plants, thus reducing the amount of fuel they need, which could lower the amount of waste produced to manageable levels (it's currently sitting at just above manageable.) It would also stop us from burning lots of fossil fuels, which help the environment and significantly delays the day when we'd run out of power. (Nuclear, of course, still requires fuel to be made. It doesn't use much, but it's still not sustainable forever.)

We should have power generated through nuclear fusion before long (many estimates say by 2050), that will provide massive amounts of energy.

I forgot to mention that helium-3 would be making it's power through fusion, d'oh. Yeah, I'm a huge advocate of nuclear power m'self, and once/if we have the technology capable of mining the moon anyway, "space" to put the waste wouldn't be an issue, just jettison it into space.

I read somewhere that tesla was able to use wireless electricity as fuel for airplanes en perhaps even cars.

I don't believe he ever did that.

He wanted to do something similar, where he'd send vast amounts of electricity up into the atmosphere, and where anyone could then draw on it.

However, the idea didn't work, for many, many reasons, and was eventually abandoned.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I don't believe he ever did that.

He wanted to do something similar, where he'd send vast amounts of electricity up into the atmosphere, and where anyone could then draw on it.

However, the idea didn't work, for many, many reasons, and was eventually abandoned.

ahn ,I didn't know that. It's a shame it never worked out.

From what I hear, fossil feul is the most efficient way to do it. I'm for nuclear power, and a combination of things depending on the place. Hydro power when we can, and whatnot.

I'm really more of a "deal with it when it happens" kind of person. When we run out of oil, we'll find something else or develop lifestyles that aren't dependant on so much technology.

Fossil fuels are far less efficient than nuclear. They are, however, more efficient than wind or solar. (Not sure about Hydro, I suspect that hydro is more efficient, but I'm not certain.)

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Hydro, however, is quite good. You get lots of power, and no pollution. Big problem here is, of course, limited places to get hydro power from. That ends up crippling it as a power source.

In fact, hydro does have some more drawbacks. If you're thinking water turbins, the biggest drawback is the big dams you have to make. We've had lots of issues with that in Norway(very big on water power), and the people living in the area usually object when it is proposed to build a huge dam in their countryside.

So, the last on the list, nuclear.

They are doing some interesting research on the use of thorium, which should be safer and cleaner, if we are to believe the most optimistic. Obviously, it will take long time for anything to happen, but it seems a nice possibility.

Isn't thorium highly carcinogenic, though?



Well, that's why we have (well, will have, if all my plans come to fruition) robots to do our work for us.

Originally Posted by Misanthrope

Let's be frank. Oil isn't going to last forever, nor is it the most efficient energy source available. I've been reading up on the more efficient energy sources and energy containment systems, so to begin, I'll throw in moon-based Helium-3 and antimatter into the fray to be picked apart. The helium-3 is found in relative abundance on the "light side of the moon" and is a highly energetic isotope which got that way by absorbing the sun's energy directly, without an atmosphere (and EDIT: We would use helium-3 in nuclear fusion reactions). The initial problem here is, well, the fact we're going to be mining the moon, the legal grey area things such as the moon occupy, and the potential for companies or countries to monopolize such operations.

Antimatter is, simply put, atoms with their charges reversed (negative electrons become positive positrons, positive protons become negative antiprotons) and when they come in contact with normal matter atoms, both of them "annihilate" and their rest masses are both converted into energy. Problem here is that antimatter takes huge amounts of energy to produce and the only places it occurs naturally are months' spacevoyages away from Earth. However, antimatter could theoretically be used as an energy STORAGE concept, so that might have a forseeable use.

Here's the thing though, as my father pointed out. Emerging technologies, in which the public is eager to accept and endorse, may not have the most thurough testing and in ten, twenty years' time, would turn out to have dangerous side effects. He used asbestos and thalidomide as examples, and did give me something to think about.


Anyway, what do you guys think?

Well, Many energy sources that are being presented to us right now are largly incapable or just don't have the promise to get anywhere. We could have windfarms everywhere, off of every coast in every feild. This of course would take lots of space but I suppose if there were so many loads of energy would be produced.

Right now, there is still oil. Some in places we can't dig, some where we can, and perhaps some we havent found yet. Oil has been reliable so far. It is I would say the birth of the whole fuel and energy thing, we have to start somewhere, as we move on other sources will be presented to us, eventually we may find somethin that can support our needs.

We are starting to feel the strains of over population. Places like Chine and India are drowning in people, now I bet you will crucify me for saying this but population control may be in our future. What keeps animal population in check? Other animals...well nothing is keeping us in check. Perhaps we will have to keep ourselves in check.

Aside from that and moving onto some other sources. Hydro electric should be put everywhere using the most efficient designs. If poeple want to use their electronics than I think they should have to look at a damn to pay for it, and who cares if you look at a damn? Why would anyone care if it was keeping you comfortable and living with air conditioning and cooked food in your belly?

Nuclear is a great thing to have, but the things needed for it are few. Granted it doesn't use much but still. Nuclear will be a good alternative and fallback if nothing else can work. But I think we should exhuast that last.

Solar I think is good for smaller things in remote locations were it will usually always function.If we can make solar much, much more efficient then we are going to get somewhere.

No one has mentions Geo-Thermal energy something that will last forever. Why not use it?

Well there is my take on it all.

Nuclear is good and all, but what about the waste?

Hmm...maybe it could be jettisoned to space if it comes down to that.

I just spoke about the "things needed for nuclear energy" NOT being few- as helium-3 is quite abundant on the moon. And, as a misanthrope, I am actually for eugenics, but that is not what this topic is about and I have a feeling China and India will either continue to capitalize on their large populations as resources or, once human labor becomes less and less important, their population will even out on its own.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

We are starting to feel the strains of over population. Places like Chine and India are drowning in people, now I bet you will crucify me for saying this but population control may be in our future. What keeps animal population in check? Other animals...well nothing is keeping us in check. Perhaps we will have to keep ourselves in check.

Larger predators like lions, crocodiles and sharks try to keep us in check, but many people believe that if an animal kills Humans, it just has to die. Those are probably the people that believe Humans are seperate from the food chain.

There is a little more to Nuclear power than waste. Nuclear meltdowns can occur. Take Chernobyl as an example. Not only the explosion but the wide spread of radioactive material that can cuase birth defects, cancer etc.

Originally Posted by Raccoon Mario

There is a little more to Nuclear power than waste. Nuclear meltdowns can occur. Take Chernobyl as an example. Not only the explosion but the wide spread of radioactive material that can cuase birth defects, cancer etc.

That only occurs when things are being poorly handled if everything is kept of to spec and people do their jobs 110% then we won't have that problem we need to make those people understand that.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That only occurs when things are being poorly handled if everything is kept of to spec and people do their jobs 110% then we won't have that problem we need to make those people understand that.

you're right. of all the nuclear plants in the world, there have been very few disasters like that.

I'd say a combination of methods is best, so if something happened to one source, there would be more, and not all pwer would be lost, and there wouldn't be a lopsided favor of one type. although i think all high-emissions methods should be stopped. (mainly coal. ) I mean, coal power was fine in the industrial revolution, but if the means exist for other ways of procuring power, why not do it!

whether or not some people keep choosing to not believe in climate change, that fact still remains that pollution is yucky and not good to breathe!

Edit: oh crap, so sorry for the double post- no idea how that happened. I thought i was editing my post...

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That only occurs when things are being poorly handled if everything is kept of to spec and people do their jobs 110% then we won't have that problem we need to make those people understand that.

These explosions are usually caused by mechanical failure.

Originally Posted by Margar

you're right. of all the nuclear plants in the world, there have been very few disasters like that.

I'm just saying that there are risks. Big risks. Risks that are far worse than any of the others.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That only occurs when things are being poorly handled if everything is kept of to spec and people do their jobs 110% then we won't have that problem we need to make those people understand that.

There was an accident in Norway, which has the same security and best as any other modern western country, there is a risk.


Also I would like to correct a not well known fact about nuclear power, it's not renewable. Just like oil, coal, gas, etc. It can run out, to be more precise run out of plutonium. If we use nuclear power to the full it will last about 60 years longer than oil will. Not a gigantic leap forward. Furthermore the cost to build and maintain enough power plants is highly cost ineffective.

Solar power has an image problem, because it was to inefficient when first used it has been named 'useless'. While it has been proven that it can run cars for instance.


I don't believe a good alternative energy source has been invented yet, but we still have about 200 years to worry.