Alternative Energy

[Livewire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy

How viable is research in alternate forms of energy? With the current supply of fossil fuels waning, eventually we'll need to find substitutes to fill in, otherwise Modern civilization comes to a halt. But can we find them in time? Oil supplies are projected to last until the end of the 21st century, so we have limited time.

Plus, some new forms of energy, such as Nuclear Power, have dire consequences for the environment and the world, should a meltdown occur. But, do the benefits of this research outweigh the monetary commitment needed to develop it?

Discuss.

 

[Kura]

Reuse plastic!!!
Hydro electricity and solar power is the way to go IMO... but it can be tricky when trying to think of fuel for planes ;o;...

 

[doesn't matter]

Reuse plastic!!!
Hydro electricity and solar power is the way to go IMO... but it can be tricky when trying to think of fuel for planes ;o;...

From what I've heard, recycling is less efficient than using new materials, using more energy to do the same thing, and thus is more polluting.

Hydro electricity has a massive environmental cost (constructing a hydro-electric dam destroys entire ecosystems), as well as set up cost, and is dependent on a steady and reliable source of water. Solar is still horribly inefficient and requires oil to for production of solar panels, plus they need to be replaced every 25 years or so.

inb4 anyone suggests wind power, it sucks too.

Nuclear is the only viable replacement for our current electricity needs, plus it's very safe these days (Chernobyl occurred because of corruptness and cutting corners), and it's quite clean. Only issue is storage of waste, but we'll deal if necessary.

That said, we still have plenty of coal (in Australia at least), so even a switch to nuclear isn't incredibly important at the moment.

I'm more worried about transport fuels. I can't imagine something replacing coal, at least until electric cars get more efficient - but then what about trucks and planes?

 

[Kura]

From what I've heard, recycling is less efficient than using new materials, using more energy to do the same thing, and thus is more polluting.

Hydro electricity has a massive environmental cost (constructing a hydro-electric dam destroys entire ecosystems), as well as set up cost, and is dependent on a steady and reliable source of water. Solar is still horribly inefficient and requires oil to for production of solar panels, plus they need to be replaced every 25 years or so.

inb4 anyone suggests wind power, it sucks too.

Nuclear is the only viable replacement for our current electricity needs, plus it's very safe these days (Chernobyl occurred because of corruptness and cutting corners), and it's quite clean. Only issue is storage of waste, but we'll deal if necessary.

That said, we still have plenty of coal (in Australia at least), so even a switch to nuclear isn't incredibly important at the moment.

I'm more worried about transport fuels. I can't imagine something replacing coal, at least until electric cars get more efficient - but then what about trucks and planes?

No.. I meant.. plastic is made from oil.. so when the oil is all depleted.. plastic is the most precious thing we have from it since it's so abundant that we could probably extract -something- from it to use.

That aside.. I was being sarcastic..

Edit:.. and just to add.. hydro works really well when there's a natural flow of water like Niagra Falls .__.

 

[Livewire]

From what I've heard, recycling is less efficient than using new materials, using more energy to do the same thing, and thus is more polluting.

Hydro electricity has a massive environmental cost (constructing a hydro-electric dam destroys entire ecosystems), as well as set up cost, and is dependent on a steady and reliable source of water. Solar is still horribly inefficient and requires oil to for production of solar panels, plus they need to be replaced every 25 years or so.

inb4 anyone suggests wind power, it sucks too.

Nuclear is the only viable replacement for our current electricity needs, plus it's very safe these days (Chernobyl occurred because of corruptness and cutting corners), and it's quite clean. Only issue is storage of waste, but we'll deal if necessary.

That said, we still have plenty of coal (in Australia at least), so even a switch to nuclear isn't incredibly important at the moment.

I'm more worried about transport fuels. I can't imagine something replacing coal, at least until electric cars get more efficient - but then what about trucks and planes?

I believe in the US we already use Yucca Mountain, which has plenty of storage space available now, so we're good there.

Nuclear is probably the only true viable option at this point.

 

[donavannj]

No.. I meant.. plastic is made from oil.. so when the oil is all depleted.. plastic is the most precious thing we have from it since it's so abundant that we could probably extract -something- from it to use.

Actually, some plastic is now made from corn stalks.

Nuclear is our most viable option, but we should probably supplement that with hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power, so we output a lower level of nuclear waste.

 

[PlatinumDude]

If fossil fuels were to run out, I think that we may have to fall back on solar power and hydroelectricity for our energy resources. However, they have their drawbacks; for solar power, the sun may not be up all the time; for hydroelectricity, you might need the water for other things.

 

[Melody]

Alternative fuels are great, but they're only going to fill the holes in my opinion. Nuclear energy fortunately has the potential for being a main fuel source...we'd just have to fully master it...which we haven't done quite yet. Sure, we can get quite a bang for our buck, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's expensive to utilize nuclear energy. Uranium doesn't grow on trees. Neither do any of the other radioactive elements, and it takes much energy to synthesize the elements needed as well as refine it for use.

Hopefully, we master nuclear energy generation tech enough to learn how to effectively use more common elements like Hydrogen to make our energy. The moment we achieve that, is the moment that our energy woes will be solved for at least a century, if not a couple millennium or more.

 

[Legobricks]

I've always been partial to geothermal energy, when I remember it exists. Still, I think it's clear that there is no single energy source we can rely on; many things are location specific, like wind farms working best on coastal sites.

By the way, disposal of nuclear waste is not dangerous if it's done properly, just bloody expensive — for starters you need a lot of lead.

Actually, some plastic is now made from corn stalks.

That's a lot of space you'd need in order to grow enough corn, if you want to make all polymers like that.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A nuclear meltdown is highly unlikely, and nuclear power generates a lot of energy. This is they way I think we should go.

 

[Aurafire]

It so happens that I'm writing a paper about alternative energy sources for one of my bioengineering classes. Specifically, a microbial fuel cell that both treats wastewater and produces electricity at the same time. Neat stuff ^.^

Anyway, technology seems to be advancing at such an amazing pace these days. I think it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to make solar/wind energy more viable, or thinks of a new method all together. As long as there's money out there to be made, a ton of smart people are going to be putting a lot of work into alternative energy sources. You could make the case that we're "coming down to the wire" in terms of the use of fossil fuels, but we have years and years left to figure it out. Mankind has a funny way of doing that.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I think Nuclear Fusion (not fission) is the way forward. It's far safer than fission and produces plenty of power. While Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Wave, Geothermal and all that jazz are good, I'm pretty sure they can't produce the same amount as Nuclear. I think we will/should end up using a combination of methods, which will of course vary depending on country. I mean we're hardly the best place to make use of Solar here in the UK are we, whilst Wave power would make sense, since we are an island nation.

 

[Livewire]

I think Nuclear Fusion (not fission) is the way forward. It's far safer than fission and produces plenty of power. While Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Wave, Geothermal and all that jazz are good, I'm pretty sure they can't produce the same amount as Nuclear. I think we will/should end up using a combination of methods, which will of course vary depending on country. I mean we're hardly the best place to make use of Solar here in the UK are we, whilst Wave power would make sense, since we are an island nation.

I think so too. I'd rather have a variety of options, than to be totally dependent on one particular source, like today. D:

 

[Esper]

Couldn't we just make everything more energy efficient while reducing the amount of energy we use (using natural light instead of electricity, walking or bicycling more, etc.) in general? Then all these "inefficient" sources or energy like solar and wind don't look so feeble.

 

[Livewire]

Couldn't we just make everything more energy efficient while reducing the amount of energy we use (using natural light instead of electricity, walking or bicycling more, etc.) in general? Then all these "inefficient" sources or energy like solar and wind don't look so feeble.

That wouldn't fly in American society today. We'd be too lazy for all those things. I imagine people would only take it (other energy sources, methods, etc) seriously once there's been some sort of energy disaster.

 

[Muffin™]

I think an apocalypse is going to happen and people have to scavenge

In Cape Cod (where I live), we use wind turbines. Alternative energy FTW!

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Here we I live we get most of our energy from Hydroelectric dams!
I think that we should harness the power of Kyogre the Ocean as there is constant transfer of energy going on in the sun. We should also use Groudon Termal energy as well as Ho-oh solar energy :)

 

[Livewire]

It so happens that I'm writing a paper about alternative energy sources for one of my bioengineering classes. Specifically, a microbial fuel cell that both treats wastewater and produces electricity at the same time. Neat stuff ^.^

Anyway, technology seems to be advancing at such an amazing pace these days. I think it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to make solar/wind energy more viable, or thinks of a new method all together. As long as there's money out there to be made, a ton of smart people are going to be putting a lot of work into alternative energy sources. You could make the case that we're "coming down to the wire" in terms of the use of fossil fuels, but we have years and years left to figure it out. Mankind has a funny way of doing that.

This. ^

I'm not terribly worried about it. With all the government resources being poured in research like this, it'll only be a matter of time until some big energy breakthrough. Given the nature of technology like you said, I could see it happening with the next 10-15 years.

 

[Cruelty And The Beast]

A private military company recently successfully tested an unmanned plane which can fly for days on solar power, storing the energy for use when it is dark. There is still hope for air travel!!

 

[Livewire]

A private military company recently successfully tested an unmanned plane which can fly for days on solar power, storing the energy for use when it is dark. There is still hope for air travel!!

Exactly. And I'm sure there's plenty more of these type stories on their way. It's just that alternate forms of energy is a hot commodity in the government at the moment, so they'd naturally have the lid on tight. The governments want to get ahead first, almost like a less heated "Space Race" of sorts.