Our future energy needs

[Superman]

What is this world going to do about our future energy needs? It's not something we have to think about just yet, but certainly we need to think about it for the sake of the next generation. I just don't see too many solutions.

Gas, coal and oil are non-renewable fossil fuels, which produce Carbon dioxide. Wind power is dependent on wind levels, which fluctuate. Hydropower has a big impact on the environment. Wave and tide power has potential, but that's not yet been realized. It seems that the renewable energy sources are dependent on so many external factors.

Then we come to nuclear energy. This has it's benefits. The price of nuclear energy is quite stable, unlike oil and coal. Nuclear power stations don't produce as much Carbon dioxide as gas, oil and coal. Nuclear power does provide a reliable steam of electricity.

However, despite the benefits of nuclear power, power stations are not cheap to build, but they cost a lot to shut down. And they can't just be shut down, radioactive nuclear waste MUST be dealt with carefully, and I can empathize with those who have concerns about the safety of nuclear power. For every advantage that nuclear power has, there seems to be a disadvantage.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for the opinions of people more intelligent than me - I know there are plenty here. What do you think is the future?

[LightningBoy]

When it comes to cars, Ethanol! The technology gets more and more sound each day: Energy by American farmers!

When it comes to mass energy, i'm thinking Nuclear.

[lionhead]

really, i feel like i have seen this topic before.... In the Star Trek Tech forum....



Anyways, it all depends on what type of energy useage you are talking about, Cars, Houses, Factories. They all need a different Suply of power, different quantaties.

For example, a car might not use as much power as a Factroy does but there are a lot more cars then Factories around so the Fuel has to be available... Hydrogen springs to mind. I think we should switch too that, get really into it...

Factories and cities however, thats something different. Cities use lots of power so big Powerplants that can give the required amount without trouble is neccesary. On this moment Nuclear powerPlants do well, but i don't think they are the ultimate solution becasue Radioactive waste will pile up, different methodes have too be found. I think HydroPlants(dams) are a good way too produce power or a city, however the consequences it has to nature must be taken into account and therefore this type of energy must be thought out carefully(the rivers need to flow!).

Perhaps geothermic power? requires a lot of engineering and technology but for a big city it might be very handy.

Wind and Solar energy isn't pwoerfull enough yet so no way for cities or Factories (or cars for that matter).

Of course, research towards Fusion might give some hope for clean, big power.


And what about Space? How do we power our Space shuttles still Oxygen?

and what about the big plans to use Ramjets too travel in Hyper sonic speeds? what fuel useage would that bring?

[Seven of Nine]

The problem with hydrogen cars is that they rely on platinum, and that's in short supply. There isn't enough platinum to produce the amount of cars we have now.

I can't see a solution- most of them rely too heavily on fossil fuels (nuclear included). The world is changing, and we're not keeping up.

[webtaz99]

Sadly, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal won't provide enough. They can be used for small, local energy supplies. And technology won't help much in these, due to the low amounts of raw energy available, even with "perfect" converters.

Nuclear CAN be better. The current light-water U235 systems are madness. Sure, they work. But they only use a fraction (~4%) of the power in the "fuel" (the uranium) while disposing the "spent" fuel rods (which are mostly a very hard though brittle ceramic). Other technologies would use different radioactives (like thorium) in a metal matrix. This provides an inherently safe reactor (the reaction slows down as it heats up, so it can never "run away" or melt down). Plus, the metal matrix means "fuel" can be recycled at the reactor, and the only waste produced is the small amount of radioactives which have broken down (typically 5% of the volume of a current reactor).

There is a promising alternate fusion technology which uses a magnetic "vortex" to provide the temperature, density and time needed to fuse deuterium and boron-11. This would provide small, scalable, distributed power with almost no radioactivity, but it needs development. And you can bet they won't get any money from the currently entrenched system!

But nuclear cars, trucks and airplanes won't happen. We need some way to power moving vehicles.

The "hydrogen economy" is window dressing. Without nearly-free power to begin with, it just creates a more expensive mutation of the current oil and natural gas monster.

Hopefully some bright molecular biologists will be able to commercialize a system that already exists in nature. Bio-catalytic fuel cells could process methanol, producing CO2 and water. Yeah, yeah - CO2 is bad. But there are natural catalytic enzymes which, in a three-step process can turn CO2 and water into methanol. It's OK to release CO2 as long as you are taking back out of the atmosphere in equal amounts. That's how nature works, and it's called a closed cycle.

[madlilnerd]

I'm for nuclear. When not built on a fault line or used as a test site, nuclear is safe and very good.

We also need to worry about all the methane produced by the thousands of livestock people farm to live off. Think how much of the rainforest has been cleared for cattleland so that McDonalds can make beef burgers. It's disgusting. They should make burgers out of rats, it's much more efficient.

I think wind turbines are pretty, and there should be more in urban environments as they don't look out of place there. A few primary schools in England have started putting wind turbines on their roofs, and i think that's fantastic.

You have to remember, that as individuals we need to be more responsible too. That means walking instead of taking the car everywhere. Bill Bryson said that the average American walks less than a mile a day! And I hate people who drive such big, guzzling, dangerous cars! Why do you need a 4x4 in Slough, the industrial capital of europe?

[Theresa]

According to a study published in the European Review, American's walk, on average, five km a day.
It's great coming up with all of these utopian ideas, but sadly, we live in reality, so we have to have some basis there.
And wipe out a whole economic market because you don't like the idea of hamburger? (or methane) What do you propose the cattle farmers do? You can't just say "stop doing this, and do this", without thinking of the people who will be affected.

[Republican_Man]

I agree with Theresa and agree that we need to shift away from oil.
But we can't just come up with ideas. What we really need to develop as well is a plan for how we're going to get there.
Unlike this one resolution in my recent Speech and Debate Congress which declared that only hybrid cars would be sold in 2008, we can't just say, "Hey, government, order businesses to do that."
No. What I think we need to do is give businesses and research organizations incentives to develop and implement new technologies--and there needs to be more consumer demand.
Now, this may be a bit confusing, but I'm going to quote ideas that Exalya and I developed in my last presidential bid on CJ Cregg's Trigan RPG on it. It's the plan for Trigan, in the RPG, that we proposed, but I think applies significantly to what we do here as well. Take a look.

[Arellia]

I don't think waiting for consumers is the idea. Consumers will be fine on using oil for as long as it's the most popular fuel. If you ask me, we need to figure out which technologies take no modifications to current cars--or the least modifications--and start to convert our gas stations. Now. This waiting thing is so stupid it's enough to make one scream.

Nuclear energy is not the way. It's more destructive than anything else--nuclear technologies are simply not going to do the trick for this. We need something entirely different. Nuclear technologies should not be promoted or furthered, in my mind. They're way too volatile. Other technologies--technologies based from and workable with the environment, nanotechnologies, anything but nuclear technology. If we took the money we used to store nuclear waste, maintain the plants and keep them secure into developing and sustaining newer, more cost-efficient technologies, guess what? We'd be using them.

[Superman]

[Republican_Man]

[PrankishSmart]

[Republican_Man]

Almost all Colorado water is from resevoirs, and what do these resevoirs have? Hydroelectric power. Believe you me, it yields a significant amount of energy. There's a resevoir not too far away from here. I don't think we get electricity from it, but nonetheless...
I agree. Don't underestimate the power of hydroelectricity.

[lionhead]

[Seven of Nine]

No, but to dig it up, you have to use machines that run on fossil fuels. The process for converting the uranium for use uses fossil fuels. The list goes on (and I'm too tired to relook it up right now- I'll do so tomorrow).

[webtaz99]

[PrankishSmart]

[madlilnerd]

Instead of PE (gym) lessons at school, make the children ride exercise bikes attached to generators.

Child obesity and energy problems solved all in one.

[Superman]

Nice idea, but could schools afford that?

You do come up with some good ideas, but unfortunately, cost enters into many decisions.

[madlilnerd]

Our school got a 5 million lottery grant for a sports hall... so why not a similar amount for other things?

Money is worthless. It's all a big promise. Just look at a ten pound note- "I promise the bearer of this 10 pounds". It's a bit of paper. And ten pounds of what? Gold?

Back on topic... people should concentrate harder on reducing fuel comsumption at home, like turning down the heating one or two degrees and turning it off at night. Having showers instead of baths. I understand that it's hard for some people to change their routine, but we all have to adapt if we want to survive.

If more food was grown locally, then less energy would be wasted through transporting it. Why on earth do we import plums from Spain when they grow so well in England? Is it because the Spanish can be exploited, putting down the price of the food?

[Seven of Nine]

Stirling silver, actually

[Republican_Man]

[Superman]

[webtaz99]