|
The future of our world, the energy of the future
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jlosada |
I think that it is time to open a thread to talk about the energy of the future. I mean that we discuss about the energy source (coal, uranium...) to produce electricity, heat... in the future.
We can diferentiate two types of sources of energy:
- Non-renewables: Coal, oil, gas, uranium.
- Renewables: Wind, solar, tydal (sea), hydroelectric, biomass.
My opinion is the next one:
The major energy source to produce electricity should be nuclear fission (using uranium) because it doesn't produce any gaseous emissions that contributes to greenhouse effect and it consumes little uranium to produce a lot of electricity. This situation will be temporal until the nuclear fussion (using water) will be fully experimented and commercial. Then we will have no emissions and no nuclear wastes.
Now a bit of technical background: in few words the nuclear fission means that to produce energy we must break the uranium atoms in two another chemical elements atoms. The nuclear fussion means that to produce energy we must join hydrogen atoms with an special kind of hydrogen atoms (trytium atoms) to produce an atom of helium (totally inert gas). The normal hydrogen ans trytium can be produced from water.
The nuclear fission has two main problems: the storage of radioactive wastes (a very difficult problem to solve) and the use of the radiactive wastes to produce nuclear weapons.
The nuclear fussion is not developed nowadays and it needs a very complicated technology (the reaction takes places at temperatures of millions of celsius degrees). But the obtained power is incredible, from 1 kg of water you can produce the same energy as 9000 tons of coal. This is not an exact data, but it is in this order. It seems incredible, but it is true. The nuclear fussion is the way that the sun produces energy.
Of course all the renewables energies can be used in the production of electricity, but in a level that not raises a lot the prize of the electricity. The renewable energies are not economically viable!
The use of renewable energies (solar) can be implemented, for example, in the heating of our home water. How much energy in the world is used in this issue? A lot. And there are a lot of examples like this.
The problem that I can't find the solution, is the power used to run the cars, trucks,... In this issue we are using a lot of non-renewable sources of energy and producing a lot of contamination. Really, I don't find any alternative source of energy because all the alternatives are not comparable: electric cars are very slow, solar cars are very slow and what happens if there's no sun and the battery is discharged. Really, I don't know.. Although, if we use nuclear and renewable power to produce all the electrical energy, a lot will have been done.
TA's, what is your opinion? |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
I like this thread. the world is running out of convenient energy.
i am definitely onside with reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, they will be all used up soon.
one thing that many people do not consider is the fact that even alternative energy sources, like windmills, hydroelectric dams and such, still require SOME petroluem, for lubrication. the price of oil is going to rise like crazy soon, mark my words.
I have given up driving my car, because I don't want to contribute to the greenhouse gasses, and depletion of natural resources any more than I have to. when i can afford a car that runs environmentally sound, I will buy one. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
it's insane to think about how much petrol products are reaped from the earth every day.. it has to run out some time, i mean.. how many dinosaurs where there? if these huge corporations didn't have such huge stakes in it, i'm sure something would have come up a lot sooner.. but these guys get a lot of favors. i'm not saying they'er snuffing attemps at cleanburning fuel, just that they've probably unhelped it a lot. :p
i've heard things about hydrogen fueled cars, but haven't seen anything as of yet. i don't think they've been able to make a stable engine yet, if any at all.
what about cold fusion? does anyone know about that? i don't know enough to inform you guys.. i think i might go read up.
late |
|
|
| PhaseFour |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
it's insane to think about how much petrol products are reaped from the earth every day.. it has to run out some time, i mean.. how many dinosaurs where there? if these huge corporations didn't have such huge stakes in it, i'm sure something would have come up a lot sooner.. but these guys get a lot of favors. i'm not saying they'er snuffing attemps at cleanburning fuel, just that they've probably unhelped it a lot. :p
i've heard things about hydrogen fueled cars, but haven't seen anything as of yet. i don't think they've been able to make a stable engine yet, if any at all.
what about cold fusion? does anyone know about that? i don't know enough to inform you guys.. i think i might go read up.
late |
cold fusino is nuclear fusion at room temperature. IMO, it is impossible because of the vast amounts of pressure needed to smash to atoms/molecules together to yield that energy.
i read somewhere that if we build an array of solar panels 100 ft square (10x10 feet), it has enough to power the continental United STates. im in favor of this plan :) |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhaseFour
cold fusino is nuclear fusion at room temperature. IMO, it is impossible because of the vast amounts of pressure needed to smash to atoms/molecules together to yield that energy.
|
yes, you are correct, at least I think so
| quote: |
i read somewhere that if we build an array of solar panels 100 ft square (10x10 feet), it has enough to power the continental United STates. im in favor of this plan :)
|
um no, sorry. I wish it were true, but unfortunately it isn't.
that is the problem, solar energy(and wind/hydro/geothermal etc) takes a LOT of space, and resources to generate.
right now, it's simply more profitable to extract oil.
there will be a crossing point though, when it become too difficult to get the oil out of the ground, and alternative energy sources become more profitable. |
|
|
| PhaseFour |
| quote: | | um no, sorry. I wish it were true, but unfortunately it isn't. |
lmao i meant 100 squaare miles. one of the biggest typos ever...
ya, i guess for now, the economics behind energy is more important than the environment. too bad bush took power :( |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I'm very interested in this topic, and like PhaseFour (and any other environmentally enlightened person) I do hate the fact that Bush became the president - no matter how well he tackles a "war on terrorism".
The problem with using fission/traditional nuclear power is that there's simply not enough uranium on this earth for this to be a lasting source of energy (I think estimates are around 15-30 years depending on increase in energy consumption). And since coal and oil are limited in supply as well and fussion has yet to mature as a technology, I see only two other options:
1: Using re-newable sources of energy. This does not only have to be solar panels (which are too expensive too build) or windmills (which are ugly and noisy), alternatives exists such as water power and the heat of the earth. Utilizing wave energy in oceans can also have a positive effect on energy supplies. The main problem of all of them is that to transport the energy and to make it mobile (for use in cars etc.) it needs to be transformed into some kind of batter/energy cell, for which hydrogen is the obvious choice. Hydrogen, however, have to large space demands for practical use, so this problem must be solved in another way.
2: People starts *saving* energy. There are tons of ways that individuals can save on energy, and as society collective transportation should be emphasised. Alternatively we should come together in few large cities instead of small rural villages, as this would decrease energy requirements for transportation.
Personally, I'd rather pay the increased price of re-newable energy sources than resorting to plan 2. But as almost nobody I speak to are willing to do likewise, we will probably have to resort to number two at some point or another. |
|
|
| RavingLunatic |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhaseFour
lmao i meant 100 squaare miles. one of the biggest typos ever...
ya, i guess for now, the economics behind energy is more important than the environment. too bad bush took power :( |
yeah that's quite the typo!
anyway, yeah bush taking power was the worst thing that could have happened. as former governor of texas, he is all connected to big oil. a lot of his people he put in power are also in the big oil companies. he commisioned a report, which basically said, we are running out of oil, we better stop using it.
his action, was to up production in coal fired plants, and withdraw from the kyoto protocol.
*sigh* it doesn't really matter, we will be out of oil soon anyway. |
|
|
| eLe_vatE |
I think hydro-electric(HE) plants are the answer. Unlike other renewable types of energy production (solar etc) HE creates a load of energy. The Aswan damn HE plant tripled the amount of power in Egypt! Also, the damn controls river discharge, meaning that people in Egypt can farm by the Nile all year round as the river is kept at a perfect level constantly, meaning more benefits for this fairly poor country.
BTW, uranium won't be used up for another 600 - 700 years, not 15 like someone said earlier. |
|
|
| jlosada |
I'm proud of have started this thread. I believe that it is important and it is one of the thing that we will suffer on the future.
- Cold fussion: I don't believe in this issue. As said Phase Four we need a lot of energy to start the reaction, but I don't think that if we increase a lot the pressure we reach something.
Now there are constructed some fussion reactors in the world (called TOKAMAK's) and they have no problems in reaching and operating at the temperatures that I have indicated in the starting post. The problem is that they can't stabilize the temperature of the hydrogen plasma and it colds.
- Solar Energy: Phase Four, let's make a rough electric power calculation of the 100x100 square miles field. Let's consider that we have the extraterrestrial solar radiation (i.e. the solar radiation that we would have if the Earth hasn't atmosphere). The mean value of the extraterrestrial radiation is 1367 W/m2. If we consider that the solar system has an efficiency of 100% (that obviously it is not true) we will have a total electrical power of about 4700 MW, and that is all! and considering that we have no clouds and atmosphere and an efficiency of of the 100%. To make a comparison, in Spain the required peak electrical power is about 36000 MW and I believe that in the USA it is a lot more.
- Hydroelectric power: eLe_vate, all the renewables energies like hydroelectric have three mean problems:
1.- They are site specific. You can install an hydroelectric instalation in a valley that storages enough height of water. You can install wind turbines, where the climate is windy. You can install solar collectors, where there are good sun conditions.
2.- They are discontinuous. In no wind, no sun periods we haven't energy. In hydroelectric installations we have this problems if there is a long period without rain or snow.
3.- They are expensive as it has been comented.
I believe that the future is fussion, not cold, hot fusion, when the actual problem will be solved.
Thanks. |
|
|
| eLe_vatE |
| quote: | [i]Originally posted by jlosada
- Hydroelectric power: eLe_vate, all the renewables energies like hydroelectric have three mean problems:
1.- They are site specific. You can install an hydroelectric instalation in a valley that storages enough height of water. You can install wind turbines, where the climate is windy. You can install solar collectors, where there are good sun conditions.
2.- They are discontinuous. In no wind, no sun periods we haven't energy. In hydroelectric installations we have this problems if there is a long period without rain or snow.
3.- They are expensive as it has been comented.
[/B] |
I respect what you are saying here, and I agree with it for the renewable energy sources, except hydro-electric, OK:
1. There does not need to be very many plants at all to create a huge amount of energy, there will never be a shortage of sites for hydro-electric plants.
2. If there is a lack of snow or rain, then the water in the huge lake that will have built up behind the dam is used up, I think they thought of that problem before spending millions on a plant! Also, major rivers, upon which HE plants are invariably placed, hardly ever dry up, there are just to many sources feeding into them. The only example of that is the river Niger, after a year of terrible drought.
3. Yes it's expensive, but if it means not buggering up the world then I think it's worth it ;) |
|
|
| PhaseFour |
| quote: | | - Solar Energy: Phase Four, let's make a rough electric power calculation of the 100x100 square miles field. Let's consider that we have the extraterrestrial solar radiation (i.e. the solar radiation that we would have if the Earth hasn't atmosphere). The mean value of the extraterrestrial radiation is 1367 W/m2. If we consider that the solar system has an efficiency of 100% (that obviously it is not true) we will have a total electrical power of about 4700 MW, and that is all! and considering that we have no clouds and atmosphere and an efficiency of of the 100%. To make a comparison, in Spain the required peak electrical power is about 36000 MW and I believe that in the USA it is a lot more. |
ya, it seems quite unbelivable to me too, but i read it in popular science, and i dont think it was a typo. i think they use some sort of light amplifier? i dunno (please PM me after im done with my physics class hehe)
i gotta agree that hydroelectric is the best way to go. i like the windmills too (althogh they arent that powerful). However, the most important thing has GOT to be conservation. not nescesarily unplugging everything in your hose, but not wasting (im not that much of an enviro freak hehe). for example, i unplg my cable modem before i go to bed. I turn off my monitor when i need to use the restroom. television goes off if i leave the room for more than 2 minutes. im not saving that much energy myself, but if we have a great volume of people just turning off cable modems, or using less powerful lightbulbs (were a trance forum....why not glowsticks:)) it could make a great difference |
|
|
|
|
