What is Digg?80 Comments
- Nickolassc, on 04/20/2009, -1/+14Nuclear and geothermal have already been proven to work and work well. If I had a choice of where my money went, it would be into those two.
- mysmartypants, on 04/20/2009, -3/+13Chasing all these dreams down seems kind of ridiculous when we are looking square in the face at one that already works: nuclear power. This website is case it point. It looks like something out of Popular Mechanics back when I was a kid. You know, the one that showed flying cars and cold fusion monorails....stating that it was right around the corner.
It almost seems indulgent the way our leading class is behaving. When you are dealing with the energy needs of 300 million people in the US, for God's sake, go with what works....don't go with the pipe dream. - smack1700, on 04/20/2009, -2/+1010. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) relies on the fact that water near the surface is heated by sunlight while seawater deep in the dark is much colder. OTEC plants use warm surface water to heat ammonia or some other fluid that boils at a low temperature. The resulting gas is used to drive turbines that produce electricity. The gas is then cooled by cold water pumped up from the ocean depths and the resulting fluid is recycled to help generate power. If less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all the solar energy trapped in the oceans could be converted into electric power , it would supply more than 20 times the total electricity the United States consumes everyday. But ocean thermal energy conversion requires a lot of money up front since the devices are massive undertakings.
9. Wind Power at Home
Compared to wind farms, small wind power systems use comparatively petite turbines to support individual homes. A typical residential wind energy system might be 1 to 10 kilowatts in capacity, with a 10- to 25-foot diameter (3 to 8 meter) rotor mounted on an 80-foot (24-meter) tower, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Turbines as small as 400 watts with rotors just 46 inches (117 cm) in diameter can help power water pumps or run lights and appliances. Wind power is free, but many small turbines don't work as advertised, and those that do are often noisy.
8. Hydrogen Vehicles
Hydrogen fuel cells react hydrogen with oxygen to generate an electric current that in turn can drive an electric motor. The only tailpipe emission would be water. Hydrogen cars are roughly twice as efficient as those that rely on gasoline. Hydrogen cars face a host of challenges. While hydrogen fuel cells only emit water, current methods of large-scale hydrogen production often extract it from natural methane gas, generating substantial amounts of carbon dioxide in the process. And where, pray tell, do you fill up?
7. Electric Cars
Cars that run purely off electric power are roughly four times as efficient as ones based on gasoline alone and twice as efficient as hybrid vehicles. Electric vehicles naturally produce no tailpipe emissions, and they are cheap to operate. The greatest challenge remains the vehicles' battery packs. The problem involves getting the cost down and improving the packs' durability to ensure the cars operate safely and well under all driving conditions -- for instance, making sure they perform in the cold and preventing them from catching on fire if they overheat.
6. Power from Flowing Water & Waves
Hydrokinetic devices are like windmills underwater. Flowing water from rivers, ocean currents, tidal streams and artificial waterways such as canals can drive rotors in turbines to generate electricity, just as breezes drive rotors on wind farms. Hydrokinetic power is renewable and does not release airborne pollutants or greenhouse gases, but the technology is about 15 years behind solar and wind technologies, and environmental impacts of ubstructing water flow are uncertain.
5. Geothermal Energy
An extraordinary amount of heat is trapped below Earth's surface, as erupting volcanoes show with their violence. Geothermal energy seeks to use this heat to generate electricity and warm up buildings and roads. Roughly 8,000 megawatts of geothermal electricity are currently produced around the world, including about 2,800 megawatts in the United States, or less than one-half of 1 percent of the electricity the nation produces. Geothermal energy is very clean, abundant, and available 24 hours a day, but it requires a lot of money up front before energy starts getting produced.
4. Wind Farms
The United States is now the world's largest generator of wind energy, producing roughly 18,000 megawatts of electricity from the wind, enough to power up to 5.4 million average U.S. homes. By 2030, the Department of Energy predicts that as much as one-fifth of the nation's power might come from wind. Other nations are currently ahead of the United States in this regard, at least on a per capita basis. Denmark, for instance, already gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. The wind is a clean, inexhaustible source of energy. But a major concern regarding wind farms is that they shred birds and bats flying into them. The turbines' presence could also fragment the ecosystems they are placed in.
3. Solar Farms
There are two ways solar farms can be used to generate a lot of electricity. Solar thermal plants -- also known as concentrating solar power systems -- focus sunlight with mirrors, heating water and producing steam that drives electric turbines, while photovoltaic cells directly convert sunlight to electricity. Solar energy is clean, renewable and has vast potential. But the sun is not always out, which means solar power suffers at night or when it is cloudy, and solar farms can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build.
2. Nuclear Power
While the nucleus of an atom is tiny, an extraordinary amount of energy helps hold it together. Nuclear power seeks to harness that energy to safely provide electricity. Roughly 100 nuclear power plants are now operating in the United States, supplying about one-fifth of the nation's electricity. Nuclear power can generate a vast amount of energy without spewing out air pollution during operation, but the radioactive waste that results can remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.
1. Solar Energy at Home
Imagine never paying another electric bill. Solar energy could make this a reality. Solar electric systems employ photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity, while solar water heaters use solar collector panels to warm up water. Solar energy is clean and renewable, but the upfront investment for these systems can be substantial -- typically $25,000 to $30,000 for a solar electric system and $10,000 for a solar water heating system. - mondoman89, on 04/20/2009, -1/+8Fusion. Enough said.
- JohnDesmarais, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6No - because a majority of American's aren't against. However, a very LOUD minority are, and they push their agenda vigorously.
- merky1, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5I agree. The whole pacific Northwest is just begging for Geothermal generation, but it seems the money is being thrown down the drain towards solar and wind. Geo-thermal has a huge advantage over wind and solar, in that it is predictable. No need to keep around redundant fossil fuel generation (for those days the wind just won't blow).
- Rudegar, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5then make it work
- pw378, on 04/20/2009, -0/+4Uranium is a fossil fuel? I want to meet the awesome lifeforms that decay into uranium!! Godzilla maybe?
- Rudegar, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5chasing crazy dreams got us to where we are today
or do you feel the Wright brothers should just have gotten haircuts and a real job? - edalquist, on 04/20/2009, -2/+6Glad to see Nuclear is high on the list. If we don't figure out a way to fix the PR nightmare in the US we are going to be left behind by the rest of the world. There was just a story about China's plans to build a 1.1GW nuclear plant for less than $7 billion. If you figure the average US home uses about 1KW/day thats enough power for over 20 million homes.
- norman619, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3LOL!!!!!!!
Something tells me you have no idea what a fossile fuel is. Google it then come back to us. - counterplex, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3Actually, for the _entire_ world's energy costs we need a total of 910,019 sq. km. which is about 0.61% of the land area on Earth.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/ - Suzilla, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3The article muddles the distinction between energy generation and storage. There are many sustainable ways of generating energy -- solar, wind, ocean current, biomass. However, probably the best way to STORE it and distribute it is with hydrogen. Fuel cells are one way hydrogen can be used, but not the only way. It can also be used to create steam that will drive existing turbines, thereby requiring less re-tooling (in the near-term) to convert existing power plants from fossil fuels to renewable ones. Petroleum's main advantage is as a storage and exchange medium for energy. Hydrogen is the new petroleum. Suggesting that we'll need home wind turbines is about as silly as suggesting we've need to have home drilling and refining stations.
- einrobstein, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3Then read a book about it. I recommend Physics for Future Presidents by Richard A. Muller.
- edalquist, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3No, I can't prove it and would love to be proved wrong actually. It is an assumption I have built on being pro-nuclear and talking to a lot of people who are scared of waste, meltdowns and have a general Not In My Backyard attitude towards it. Also the complete lack of new nuclear power plants being built in the US.
- mysmartypants, on 04/20/2009, -1/+4So I presume you are in favor of one of the "safer" and more mainstream energies like bicycle generators or wind turbines or hitching up turbines to cow's backsides. Look, I like a pipedream as much as the next guy, but the proposals that are out there are exactly that. Nuclear power is zero emission, highly efficient and exceedingly cost effective. The no-nukes propaganda machine won't sway that fact. Hopefully the baby boomers propagating the misinformation will either move on to burning their bras or simply retire to their trust funded second home on Walden pond.
BTW. Chernobyl was the result of government failure, not equipment failure...which is why the NRC refuses to associate mechanical failure as a likely risk to nuclear power. Obama has a long way to go before he makes us as disfunctional as the USSR. - PhantomRogue, on 04/20/2009, -2/+5Not only what works, but what is most efficient, what is most readily available, what is proven to work, what is ready NOW, not in 10 years.
Its all about the fears of some antiquated Cold War View of the word Nuclear. People are scared ***** of the word Nuclear that they spit in the face of the best alternative to fossil fuels. - usefulidiot127, on 04/20/2009, -2/+5Uh Solar takes away energy just like wind does. Lets not violate newton's laws here.
- MWeather, on 04/20/2009, -0/+3I'd choose solar, but I'm biased. I live in the desert.
- katorga, on 04/20/2009, -1/+3Damn the power Companies. They are going to suck up tons of taxpayer funded corporate welfare to build large, expensive, centralized power generation to sell back to the taxpayer at a huge profit.
The planet is covered in individual houses with a roof sucking up sunlight. Every one of those houses should have enough renewable energy sources power themselves and sell some to the Power Company. The subsidies should be going to real estate owners not the lobby-heavy power companies. - serif69, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2I think it should spend the money where appropriate, spread across technologies where it makes sense. Solar in the desert, wind on the plains and offshore, geothermal near such activity, and nuclear everywhere. Solar, wind, and geothermal are essentially "free" energy, i.e. don't require fuel to produce. The investment is up front and in maintenance, not on unsustainable fuel. However, nuclear is proven, efficient, and clean. Unfortunately it looks like we're back a square one with waste disposal since the Obama administration's decision to cut funding for the Yucca Mountain project.
- artinge3, on 04/19/2009, -0/+2i'm amazed the hydrogen fuel cell was still on there. The tidal energy stuff is pretty neat though!
- gigi52, on 04/19/2009, -5/+7If the government really wants to help, give FULL tax credits for solar and/or wind power for homes. Support testing and innovation to make it as efficient as possible. Give enough tax credit to offset the increased price of hybrid cars, including buying used hybrids. People would like to be more 'green' buy cannot afford it. That's where the stimulus/tax dollars should go. Back to the people, not the corporations that pad their own pockets first.
- pathouston22, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Exactly.
My U.S. representative did a poll of my district, and sent us the results. About 85% support nuclear power.
And, btw, there are several nuclear reactors going through the approval process right now. They will be built. - foohookups311, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2I agree. Those same "environmentalist" that hate Nuclear Energy are also the first ones to tell us how terrible the carbon emissions are for our environment. Well, they can't have it both ways. We can improve the safeguards of Nuclear Energy so that the probability of meltdown is near zilch.
- foohookups311, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Cold Fusion FTW!
Hopefully the man researching it on that news piece was measuring his energy inputs correctly. - skintigh, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Not to mention develop the source of energy that would be stored in hydrogen... Right now almost all of our hydrogen comes from burning coal. How is that an alternative energy bet?
- norman619, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2katorga: They can build large geothermal plants that can provide lots of power to large regions of the country. The new plants are pretty damn impressive. You just have to connect them to the grid.
- cgimusic, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2IMHO the only viable option currently is nuclear. We just need to find a way of destroying the waste.
- katorga, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Geothermal is limited to specific geographic conditions. It would not work everywhere, and nuclear is hated and feared (although if the French can do 80% of the electricity without blowing themselves up, it must be reliable).
- memills, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2Algea to oil. See Craig Vinter's talk on this at TED.com
- xenuxenuts, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2While nuclear needs to be part of the picture, imo we need a variety of power sources. We can not foresee every problem with the solutions we have. Imagine the amount of pollution we'd be dealing with if we relied 100% on coal plants rather than having some nuclear and hydro. If we'd have went 100% nuclear, disposing of the waste would be an even bigger issue. Many times, problems with solutions don't show up for years or decades. Distributing the risk and the problems is very important with things of this size.
- docbob84, on 04/20/2009, -0/+2It would be better because it would be a start. Switch the cars, THEN switch the power plants. At least in between you would have cleaner air along roads and in cities, as long as you're away from the power plants. And coal burning power plants don't make the ozone and nitrates that cause smog, if I remember right. It's not ideal, no. Ideal would be if we woke up tomorrow and all cars produced no emissions, were powered by rainbows and sunshine, everything ran perfectly and everyone was happy all day. Not bloody likely. If the two changes (cars and power sources) have to be made separately, I'd be happy as long as they're being made at all.
- darkop, on 04/20/2009, -0/+111. Harnessing the kinetic energy from thousands of mouse clicks as people try to navigate through paged Top-10 lists.
- JBizness, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1If all the oil and coal disappeared right now, I'd agree that nuclear is the best choice. At the moment, it's the only alternative energy source with the capability of meeting our energy demands. The problem is that you're just trading one problem for another.
There's the obvious problem of what you do with the nuclear waste. Where are you going to put all of it? We could put it all in one place, but would you be comfortable with trucks driving thousands of miles with radioactive waste in the back? What if they get in an accident? And if we have multiple sites, how will you pick where to dump the waste when no one wants it in their "back yard"? Radioactivity obviously poses a health risk, and could be a huge problem if it seeps into ground water. You also have to keep in mind that when a nuclear power plant gets decommissioned, there will literally be tons of material left over from the plant, like concrete slabs that shields the radioactivity and the turbines that actually generate the power, that will have become radioactive through long term exposure. That stuff needs to go somewhere too. Right now, that makes nuclear power a temporary solution at best, since we can't just keep hiding it. People are working on recycling old nuclear waste, but that's as much of a "pipe dream" as any of the other power sources they talked about.
I agree with xenu. We're going to need a little everything. Taking advantage of every technology where they are best suited is our best bet. There is no "one size fits all" solution for our energy problems. Sure, not all of the technology is where we'd like it to be, but it'll get better. It always does. - docbob84, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Solar is nice because you can cover a roof in solar panels, but we're not likely to have basement nuclear generators anytime soon. It would be nice if a) panels became cheaper and more efficient, and b) the cultural norm was to have houses with panels on the roofs. All that energy is coming down anyway and it's going to waste; I figure why not use it if we can?
I do agree though that nuclear and geothermal are our best bets for a quick solution. My preference would be to switch from coal to nuclear/geo over the next ten years, and see further conversion to solar/hydro/geo/tidal as they become feasible, say over 50-75 years. Eventually uranium runs out, too, just like coal. Keep the plants, as you say, for when the "wind won't blow" but gradually switch to stuff that doesn't have to be extracted from the ground or have to be disposed of. - larryg2k3, on 04/30/2009, -0/+1More news/opinion on alternative energy can be found at www.NextGenEnergy.blogspot.com
- ViscidGobs, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1The latest research on solar power indicates a greater power generation capacity using chemical reactants that are sensitive to not on the visible light spectrum but also the infared and ultraviolet radiations, respectively. Research and implementation of solar, wind, and current electrical grid efficiencies are only in their infancy. Future economic growth will have to come from these sources because the world is running out of oil and it is getting more expensive to acquire.
- stonebear, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1I think what you meant to say is that sustainable energy won't happen in any meaningful way within the current political-economic system. But it's clear that system is coming to an end as it frantically scrabbles for ever diminishing resources; everything about it is unsustainable. Regardless of what he thinks of himself, man is part of nature. We cannot deny natural law in our affairs, and that which does not evolve must perish. Look around at the weeds, because they will soon be the garden... for those who survive.
- gdha, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1These all need to be in place and should be required by some energy hogging places.
- norman619, on 04/20/2009, -2/+3Solar and wind are pipedreams simply because there is no way to store the energy when it's not being used. The technology doesn't even exist. They are great supplental sources of power but that's about it for the near future. My money is on Nuclear and Geothermal since both have proven themselves to be good suplimental sources of power. We can greatly cut our dependancy on fossile fuels by simply building more nuclear plants. Here is a fact most people who are against nuclear power are clueless about. If you were to tke ALL the nuclear waste poduces from all the nuclear power plants currently in existance and ever existed it wouldn't even fill a basic high scool gymnasium. Nuclear powe plants do not spew out a lot of nuclear waste. Also given the fact that in the over 50 years nuclear power has been used only one poorly designed and constrcted plant has ever melted down. People who like to hold up Chernobyl as a reason not to use nuclear power are either clueless of the facts surrounding the plant failure or are out right liars deliberately using the ignorance and fears of the masses to further their own agenda.
- dsfjvhbd, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Sorry but you two need to get your definitions right. Fossil (adjective) means dug up from the ground.
- dbz253, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1as far as solar energy at home goes, whatever happened to this?: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_gross_on_n ...
- crescentfreshld, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1I love the picture that they chose to use for nuclear...did anyone notice? (it's a mushroom cloud)
- mondoman89, on 04/20/2009, -1/+2Well I'm currently in college as a mechanical engineering major, so I might be able to help. But there isn't nearly enough funding. And I'm not talking about cold fusion.
- goatworship, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1For solar power to generate a useful amount of power, just about every man made surface would have to be photovoltaic, which would obviously be extremely expensive. We could also make all of our public walkways and roadways piezoelectric, which would also be expensive and require constant replacement of worn out sections.
All of this would be nice, but realistically it's fiscally impractical when comparatively cheaper Nuclear power is emission free, and we're starting to get quite good at using every last shred of useful material, and we'll probably find the small amount of remaining left overs useful for something eventually.
And wind power will be a mistake if used on a massive scale, and should always be used as far away from populated areas as possible. All in all, it's the poorest of choices. - ViscidGobs, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Ever heard of Tritium 90?
- EricAnderton, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Actually low-temperature geothermal can be useful in the desert too. You can bottle up some of that daytime heat for the nighttime, as well as go the other-way around. Plus the near-surface below-ground temperature is bound to be cooler than the air on a 100+ degree day - that make sterling engines and passive A/C very feasible.
- knobbysideup, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1Nuclear NOW. It's the best option, and doesn't require big ugly fans, dams, or solar cells. And while we're at it, smaller houses and stop clearcutting forest for friggin' golf courses and malls.
- elementop, on 04/20/2009, -0/+1@norman: transmission incurs losses. The longer the distance of the transmission, the greater the losses. In other words, while you probably can build large geothermal power plants to provide power for a lot of the U.S., you probably *can't* build a geothermal power plant in Wyoming to power Miami.
In other words, katorga has a valid point: geothermal is great, but it won't work everywhere.
IMHO, people who espouse one particular technology to "solve" the energy problem are being myopic. Let's develop as many of these technologies as we can, and implement them where they make sense. Wind is great along the coasts due to daily onshore/offshore winds (the wind almost *always* blows on the coasts). Solar is awesome in the desert southwest. Geothermal has huge potential in the northwest. And yes, nuclear is probably part of the answer, as well. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is