|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New ways to obtain enery?(PART I)
We all know that today's method of harnessing energy from fossil fuel is a major pollution factor. And, we all know the consequences and the idea of Global Warming is not at all new. What then can we do?
Hey guys, post your craziest but viable ideas that is worth considering.
I have thought of one which use the causitive agents of global warming to solve the problem of global warming. Hear more about it soon.
Hey guys, post your craziest but viable ideas that is worth considering.
I have thought of one which use the causitive agents of global warming to solve the problem of global warming. Hear more about it soon.
Unfortunately, the problem isn't exactly which fuel we use, but the total amount of fuel consumed globally.
We live in a closed energy system, meaning that anything that we do energy wise is coming from somewhere else on the planet.
Just imagine, imagine that the US, which consumes 25% of the earths resources every year, switched entirely over to wind energy. The windmills stretch from Seattle to San Diego. Pacific winds, normally driving far inland, are stopped cold. What sort of impact could this have on the rest of the country? What could happen to weather patterns globally?
It may be that the best answer lies in simply reducing our consumption until we can better understand the systems that we are affecting.
We live in a closed energy system, meaning that anything that we do energy wise is coming from somewhere else on the planet.
Just imagine, imagine that the US, which consumes 25% of the earths resources every year, switched entirely over to wind energy. The windmills stretch from Seattle to San Diego. Pacific winds, normally driving far inland, are stopped cold. What sort of impact could this have on the rest of the country? What could happen to weather patterns globally?
It may be that the best answer lies in simply reducing our consumption until we can better understand the systems that we are affecting.
There is only 1 natural resource that is reliable & predictable - wave-power. But that is not a feasible option for many countries. Even for countries that do have a long enough coastline, the power produced per acre is far less than for more conventional power generation methods, i.e. coal, oil, gas & nuclear.
Solar power is not an option for much of the world & if we get the cloud cover increase predicted by some climatologists, they'd be a total waste of money.
Wind power could work on a small scale - say, each village had it's own wind turbine. But for even a moderate-sized town, the land area needed is too large. Maybe for countries like Canada, the U.S., Russia, China, etc, where there is plenty of open space, it could be an option. But in England we don't have the amount of spare land near the areas where the power is most likely to be needed. Plus, wind is too unpredictable to be a major source of power. 2 or 3 days with little or no wind & we'll all be in trouble or relying on alternatives.
Hydro power, also, has many limitations. Again taking the U.K. as an example - there are very few places where a hydro plant could be built. The only places with suitable rivers/waterfalls/ are in areas where winter weather would quite possibly stop staff getting to work when the power is needed most.
Incineration of waste, again, would only be a small-scale solution. And there is so much opposition to incineration plants that this idea is probably a non-starter. In any case, waste incineration plants & recycling are not compatible. The more waste that is recycled, the less there is for the power plants.
Geo-thermal, although widely used in countries such as Sweden & New Zealand, is not feasible for many countries.
The only long-term solution that is avalable today is nuclear. More money & research effort should be directed at fission. There's another post here about sonoluminescence. If that turns out to be genuine, it could go a fair way to solving some of the major issues surrounding fission.
Just as an aside, don't be fooled into thinking that electric or hybrid cars go a long way to reducing greenhouse gases. That electricity has to be generated, & most of it is produced at plants that emit the very gases we're trying to reduce!
Solar power is not an option for much of the world & if we get the cloud cover increase predicted by some climatologists, they'd be a total waste of money.
Wind power could work on a small scale - say, each village had it's own wind turbine. But for even a moderate-sized town, the land area needed is too large. Maybe for countries like Canada, the U.S., Russia, China, etc, where there is plenty of open space, it could be an option. But in England we don't have the amount of spare land near the areas where the power is most likely to be needed. Plus, wind is too unpredictable to be a major source of power. 2 or 3 days with little or no wind & we'll all be in trouble or relying on alternatives.
Hydro power, also, has many limitations. Again taking the U.K. as an example - there are very few places where a hydro plant could be built. The only places with suitable rivers/waterfalls/ are in areas where winter weather would quite possibly stop staff getting to work when the power is needed most.
Incineration of waste, again, would only be a small-scale solution. And there is so much opposition to incineration plants that this idea is probably a non-starter. In any case, waste incineration plants & recycling are not compatible. The more waste that is recycled, the less there is for the power plants.
Geo-thermal, although widely used in countries such as Sweden & New Zealand, is not feasible for many countries.
The only long-term solution that is avalable today is nuclear. More money & research effort should be directed at fission. There's another post here about sonoluminescence. If that turns out to be genuine, it could go a fair way to solving some of the major issues surrounding fission.
Just as an aside, don't be fooled into thinking that electric or hybrid cars go a long way to reducing greenhouse gases. That electricity has to be generated, & most of it is produced at plants that emit the very gases we're trying to reduce!
I agree with wave power as the future... However, there are new technologies coming out that will increase the amount of power a wave generator can create... i was reading somewhere that there is a new version of the wave generator that actually uses the motion of the air through a tube to rotate a turbine. The air is created when a wave raises the water up and down in the tube creating high and low pressure and therefore moving air.
The tech is pretty far off though, so dont expect it out too soon. Maybe after about a couple of years, once they perfect the tech and make it cheaper to construct, it we will start seeing it more...
I also think that there should not be a one and only source of energy. I think it is very important that we use every option, and not over use one option or another. So instead of making ALL nuclear energy plants or ALL wind plants, etc, we should supplement every tech with different tech.
The tech is pretty far off though, so dont expect it out too soon. Maybe after about a couple of years, once they perfect the tech and make it cheaper to construct, it we will start seeing it more...
I also think that there should not be a one and only source of energy. I think it is very important that we use every option, and not over use one option or another. So instead of making ALL nuclear energy plants or ALL wind plants, etc, we should supplement every tech with different tech.
i heard something bout using electrolysis of water.. water being a renewable source can be quite ideal.. anybody noes bout this?
| thiamshui wrote: |
| i heard something bout using electrolysis of water.. water being a renewable source can be quite ideal.. anybody noes bout this? |
Yes... they want to extract hydrogen from water so that they can use the hydrogen to power fuel cell cars. This tech is a LONG way off. It takes a lot more energy to extract hydrogen from water compared to the amount of energy you get back from a fuel cell... in other words they want a perfect system where you never have to fill up your gas tank and can go on forever... but this will not happen anytime soon...
I will say waves is the most effective since in the middle of an ocean, atlantic ocean for example, will always be wave, they are quite powerful too to produce energy.
I have to disagree with nuclear energy for being effective. Not becaues of the energy out (man, the out put is alot), but the effect to the environment. Neuclear waste could damage our environment and us. It's limited becuase we need places to store them safely, and it's hard to find a place that earthquick wouldn't strike it for thousand of years, ( take that long to finish decay). Plus, we are not really good enough to handle it and recieve it's maxium energy output.
I have to disagree with nuclear energy for being effective. Not becaues of the energy out (man, the out put is alot), but the effect to the environment. Neuclear waste could damage our environment and us. It's limited becuase we need places to store them safely, and it's hard to find a place that earthquick wouldn't strike it for thousand of years, ( take that long to finish decay). Plus, we are not really good enough to handle it and recieve it's maxium energy output.
| Billwaa wrote: |
| I will say waves is the most effective since in the middle of an ocean, atlantic ocean for example, will always be wave, they are quite powerful too to produce energy.
I have to disagree with nuclear energy for being effective. Not becaues of the energy out (man, the out put is alot), but the effect to the environment. Neuclear waste could damage our environment and us. It's limited becuase we need places to store them safely, and it's hard to find a place that earthquick wouldn't strike it for thousand of years, ( take that long to finish decay). Plus, we are not really good enough to handle it and recieve it's maxium energy output. |
I would have to agree, Nuclear energy is far too unstable for wide use and the storage of used fuel is extremely difficult. Also 1000 years is only the half-life of plutonium, not its whole life-span. So in 1000 years only half of the plutonium is gone
!
Now if we could perfect fusion on the other hand..... that would be great!!! we could use anything as fuel and make it into something heavier! Put in some hydrogen, you get helium, etc. The waste could be used for anything else!
I heard that japanese scientists in Japan have found a way to extract petrol fuel from cow dung by applying high pressure and extreme temperatures. You can check that up in
www.spinneyhead.co.uk/EcoHouse/2006/03/poop-power-fuel-from-cow-dung.php.
www.spinneyhead.co.uk/EcoHouse/2006/03/poop-power-fuel-from-cow-dung.php.
 |