What is Digg?64 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26The only thing keeping us from using nuclear energy is ignorance. That ignorance is costing us trillions of dollars and the well-being of our environment. What a pathetic, ignorant bunch of ***** we have elected to legislate public policy...
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Hydrogen is not an energy solution.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No, actually I was just pointing out that saying hydrogen is an energy solution is like saying alkaline batteries are energy solutions. Neither of them produce energy on their own, they work as energy TRANSPORT, which is completely different.
It shouldn't be on THIS list, but it is most certainly something that will come in the future (Yes, compressed hydrogen is unsafe, but there are ways of storing it in compounds ( at 3x the density of liquid H2 ) and having it be very safe. - JHW539, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Hi thomasrex. I'm a real engineer, and I use PVs regularily. I also work with utiltity energy engineers, but what the heck would they know? I would be quite interested to find out why your calcs apparently do not line up with mine. I admit a 7-10 year payback is not amazing, but it is quite viable. And unless you're dumb as a brick, you might stop to consider that the intermittancy of solar almost exactly aligns with the intermittancy of commercial building power use. Particularily in cooling climates where power peaks align with solar irradiation peaks. Combine with a good grid mix including the excellent responsiveness of hydro and modern nuclear, and solar has great potential. Combine with site storage using new battery technology (which would replace the generator and associated on-site diesel storage issues on many commercial projects) or a phase-change approach, and then I agree you might be getting a bit into happy fantasy land.
As for offsite wind power, it has already been developed to being a flat-out economically competitive option in many cases. Solar and wind are not "the" answer, but based on the last 20+ years of development and decade of integration into operating grids around the world, you have to deny reality to argue they are not in the mix. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Let's not kid ourselves. The politicians have been bought by the oil companies. And of course public opinion comes behind self-interest (ironic that those who are "civil servants", put their own interests first).
We will be on oil for a whiiiiiile. - kokorhekkus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8He forgot renewable biofuels.
Here where I live in Sweden we have a biogas factory that produces methane by anaerobic digestion of stuffs like slaughterhouse refuse, manure etc. The gas is then used in local buses, municipality vehicles and taxis and they produce the yearly equivalent of 1 million gallons of gasoline. Then there's fast growing bushes/trees that can be used for fuel in heaters. Neither of these add any extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Of course these can't be used everywhere but the same goes for the other "solutions". In Sweden we could probably grow a lot more of energy type crops since the farming is becoming more and more efficent. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I still think the obvious ways are a combination of wind, solar, hydro and becoming more energy efficient across the board. Harmless and renewable.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ ilyag
Talk to the environmentalists who fight tooth and nail every time a nuclear power plant is proposed. They argue against pretty much every aspect of it, and even resort to lying in ads. - rorrison, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Kamill85
Actually, any CO2 released from biofuels came from the atmophere, recently, so they're carbon neutral.
The problems are that they are very inefficient (when you take into account the energy used producing them) and that if all the suitable crops grown in the US were used to produce biofuels, it still wouldn't meet the demand for gasoline (never mind the food shortage that would result). - kokorhekkus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Kamill85
As I said, renewable biofuels does not add any EXTRA carbon dioxid. If you replace, for example, 1 MWh/year of fossile fuel energy with renewable biofuel then the first year you get no less carbon dioxide emission. But next year (and next year and...) you save 100% in carbon dioxide emissions compared to fossile fuel... the carbon dioxide is _rebound_ in the fuel when it grows up again. So there's a ONE year offset then i't is carbon dioxide neutral as the other alternatives. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree.
The biggest mistake people make when thinking about hydrogen is that they fixate on the fact that hydrogen gives a great deal of energy per unit weight. So what's wrong? *Hydrogen is one fourteenth the density of air.* It's density in gaseous form at atmospheric pressure is 0.0899 kg per cubic meter. It takes an enormous amount of energy to compress hydrogen to a practically usable density (liquifying it is out of the question; that takes way more energy), and for what? For turning it back into water vapor and electricity in a fuel cell. In other words, hydrogen is not a fuel, it's just a very lousy battery.
Fuel cell efficiency is pretty good compared to other forms of electrical conversion, but that's not the problem. The problem comes from all the energy loss between electrolysis, compression, transport, and use in a fuel cell before losses at the motor and everything else. A lot more of it has to be transported to do the same work, since it takes so much volume. You can't transport hundreds of tons of hydrogen at a time, because that kind of mass of hydrogen would take up way too much volume. The Hindenburg was something like 800 feet long and about as big around as a large ship's girth. If I remember correctly, it weight under 100 tons; the equivalent supertanker weighs at least a million tons if I'm not mistaken.)
In other words, the hydrogen economy is a red herring. The electron economy is already within reach, and by all measures, it would outperform the hydrogen economy simply by cutting out all the losses between electrolyzing water and turning the hydrogen back into water in fuel cells. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The issue, which no one seems to discuss, is the massive amounts of steel and concrete and land and maintenance required to support the cells or turbines"
@thomasrex-How much steel and concrete is required to drill for oil on land and with offshore rigs, ship it in tankers store it in tanks, send it through pipelines, refine it, truck it, and distribute it in gas stations to the consumer for gas and power generators for electricity? Not to mention the materials needed to maintain an military to insure access to this resource. - kokorhekkus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@DougieD
Yes methane, biogas == fuel. Yes it emits CO2 in burning but that is rebound every time the material used in the digestor is recreated (remember, it's organic material). And putting the manure in the plant must actually be a really good idea if your numbers on longevity are true. The manure would emit methane straight into the atmosphere (albeit producing less of it per unit) if you let it decompose outside. And when they use non-toxic matter (no heavy metals etc) in the digestor on of the resulting rest-products (methanogenic digestate) can be used as a very good fertilizer. So nothing lost in that regard if done properly. - aveyuen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@JHW359
Thank you - I couldn't have said it any better myself. I too am a 'real' engineer, something I'm not so sure thomasrex is. In fact, I'm a PV research engineer, with family and friends that work in nuclear engineering/research, and I simply don't understand why the general public thinks that the two options can't co-exist. All the engineering-educated people I know support both. Nuclear/clean coal/hydro provides the baseline, solar/wind/natural gas provides the peaking power, and overall demand is lowered by heat pumps, fluorescent/solid state lighting, and better insulation. - philforhumanity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What about fusion?
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Fortunately for the environment, the increasing use of energy around the world ensures that we don't have a "whiiiiile" to use oil.
Unfortunately for us, the U.S. government nor general populous hasn't started to push towards a migration to green power. We're more focused on MTV Crib's and Brad/Angelina than fixing our possible energy crisis. - greenink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Sorry to borrow some of your words!!!
Some people "are just funny. There are so many millions of people" who can't be bothered to understand something before commenting on it, "and they will NEVER EVER EVER" educate themselves before they display their lack of knowledge.
1) Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is roughly three to six months for Wind power, 16 months for Nuclear. So, in fact EROI for Wind is better than Nuclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
2) Intermittency. Yes, and what happens when a Nuclear reactor gets shut down for up to 6 years at a time like some have been in the UK. Do we have spare reactors waiting to fire up? No, the energy grid is designed to cope with production fluctuation. No-one argues that all our electricity should come from one source, and there are estimates that up to 20% can come from Wind with minimal extra generation required for intermittency. In fact periods of most wind generation tend to occur during periods of peak electricity demand, ie Winter time. Try reading up on energy grid balancing, spinning reserve, and other energy system related theory.
Educate yourself before you try to lecture at others! - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the concept of nuclear power, however it needs to be re-engineered. We need to have systems that will never create a 3-mile Island or Chernobyl (That seems doable, already). The problem is smaller, meltdown resistant reactors means many more plants that will need very high security to prevent attack or theft of radioactive material.
We need some way of eliminating waste permanently. The idea to bury it with hope that no geological event will occur before it naturally decays or we figure out what to do with it is foolish. It is much like the idea that the earth is big enough for us to dump our other wastes into the water, air and soil with impunity.
We need a rail launcher that can be fool proofed. That, even to the last second, can be diverted safely without any release of material. When that can be done, the worst of the material generated may be sent into the sun. We will not pollute our planet or the solar system. Nuclear tech needs an end game solution. Do it right and we will redesign our world with cheap energy. Do it wrong and millions, if not billions, may die like that Russian spy. I am not a tree hugger, but crapping in your own well is pretty stupid. - WaltC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes-- PVs seem to be largely ignored in lieu of larger and grander approaches these days. Of the medium term alternatives, I think that solar seemed to be one of the the stronger contenders. From DOE numbers, in 1980 PV systems cost $1/kwh. By 1990 the number had come down to about 40c/kwh. It's currently at 20c/kwh and by 2020, it should be 10c/kwh (roughly even with today's electricity costs). Even without subsidies, homes and many businesses could become energy neutral. Just think how that time frame might look if there *were* more subsidies.
By the way, according to DOE's numbers wind power looks even more cost effective. So the same thing might be said to apply there-- those wind turbine things were kind of cool looking. - intangible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why isn't the Solar Updraft Tower included? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
- JHW539, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm surprised to see PVs are so low on the list. Thanks to well-deserved subsidies (not of the scale of royalty-free oil drilling, but its a start) the PV market is getting the long-delayed development and mass manufacturing push needed to really make it viable. The distributed infrastructure benefits of PV systems are also compelling enough to place it well ahead of most of the other options on the list. When installed PVs reach the critical mass that they are able to start to eliminate the need for some transmission routes, their cost equation will suddenly look far more positive. The implications of neighborhoods being their own stand -alone power generators are somewhat breathtaking when you run down all its implications.
Althought that's not very far future really. When I see zero-energy buildings being designed, its all about PVs, although we may toss in a wind turbine (mostly for its kinetic sculpture value) and a microturbine fired on biodiesel in the basement (with a multistory building, its tough to do it all with PVs and the cogen heat stream is great for heating and cooling via an adsorption or absorption chiller). - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@muyoso
The enviornmentalists who told you that are not enviornmentalists. They are NIMBY's, just like the elitist ***** who don't want a wind farm in cape cod cause it spoils the view of their summer house. Wind farms can be designed to be relatively safe to birds.
Hydro, unfortunately, always clearly entails a lot of damage to plant and animal species.
Evidence also suggests it may cause release of a lot of methane from the water, mitigating it's use to counteract global warming.
Another alternative often ignored: Carbon sequestration. It's basically pumping your emissions into small aquifers in the ground to keep it out of the air.
It does'nt cost very much, but it is'nt free, and right now, nobody has any inventive to build any. You can thank bush for that. - chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How many other alternatives are there?
Artificial photosynthesis is probably the holy grail of the solar energy industry though. - kokorhekkus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Kamill85
I didn't dig you down (I consider it poor form to vote in your own discussions, sorry to burst your bubble), I just argued with you. Others did the digging.
None of the other alternatives do decrease the current level of carbon dioxide. They just stop adding to it. Same thing with renewable biofuels except, like I pointed out, they have an offset of one year. All the emitted carbon dioxide is rebound in NEW organic matter for the NEXT cycle of using RENEWABLE biofuel.
So if you install solar panels for X amount of fossile fuel energy you stop adding carbon dioxide for that amount directly. If you use renewable biofuel then you emit as much the first year. The next year you emit the same amount... but that has been REBOUND in the NEW ORGANIC matter used. So from year 2 it does not add/subtracts/what-ever-you-name it as much as solar panels or nuclear power. In the long run the end result is the same. And if you can produce X amount of energy one year earlier with biofuel than with other options (lower investment overhead making it more attractive to use) then you're standing on exactly the same emission point.
So it's a viable ecological option at some places (like in countries where we have a long growth season when energy isn't needed as much) - wacki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This guy lists hydrogen as one of the top ten. That is very far from the truth:
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/hydrogen-economy-no-backing-in-physics.html - drthipp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2maybe a month or so ago had the opportunity to spend several late nights with my boss putting together a DOE proposal. i never read the call for proposals but the gist of it was artificial photosynthesis. this link didn't mention it but the holy grails for these systems is either water splitting or CO2 fixation. basically, generating hydrogen as its needed (not storing it) or converting CO2 in the atmosphere into methane, methanol, or higher molecular weight "solar fuels". both are very difficult to do without consuming energy from sources other than the sun. the government is spending millions on R&D because the sun is essentially a limitless source of energy, we just need the right catalyst to do useful chemistry with that energy.
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like lists like this but there won't be much change until I can pick up a catalog like Circuit City or Dell and have stuff to outfit homes with an alternative fuel setup.
I've got money and have been searching for a long time to find something to convert my home. I refuse to pay someone to do the labor (to keep the cost low, help me be more educated on the setup, etc.). Until it is easy and obvious for homeowners and businesses, these technologies won't be going anywhere (unfortunately). - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ZPE as it relates to an energy source is a scam unless the inventor can show some new laws of physics or show how the current laws are invalid.
- Azertyqsdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, and I find this omission quite incredible, while there is a major project involving industrialized countries to build a experimental reactor based on nuclear fusion: ITER http://www.iter.org/
Nobody really knows for sure if and when it would become available - maybe in 50 years - but there is a reasonable hope for a clean, safe and virtually unlimited energy. - Nebbie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gah, misread your comment there and I timed out editing my own, ignore the comment above this one... I have faith in the fact that oil is limited, and it doesn't matter if those in charge of oil companies are selfish or not as eventually there wont be money in fossil fuels, but there will money in newer forms of energy that are hopefully better for us all.
It's just an optimistic view from someone who is just trying to have a happy life with his family and is hoping that things will work out fine. I don't have the knowledge, the time, or the money to make a substantial difference, and I am hoping the people with all 3 of those qualities will work to keep things going.
In no way am I defending those that abuse the people of this planet and the planet itself, and I fully support innovation in energy production. I do work for a large American Oil Company in Canada. The people I work with do their very best to make environmental concerns a priority. I am not close to management here but I get the same impression from them too.
So take my opinion any way you want, I don't pretend to be right, I'm just hopeful. - MrPlug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea i rather have free energy, that would make a way better future, screw those energy companies telling us what we should pay to keep our lights on, that goes for the gas powering our cars.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Ignorance is the operative word and applies to both sides of the argument. There have been a number of cases where ignorance has lead to disaster with nuclear technology being treated carelessly.
While the nuke technology may be perfected, the people operating it are still human and subject to error and temptations of cutting corners to save money or just plain laziness. The difference between making a mistake at a conventionally-fired power plant is that you might blow up a boiler. The consequences for screwing up a nuke plant are far greater. - stinkypyper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is what we need to start doing.
1) Farm bio fuels, or use forests, and burn them. I know it adds CO2 to the air, but it's a closed loop, your not adding the dinosaur CO2 locked beneath the earth. A forest will naturally have it's own bio-diversity so it will take care of itself, no need for fertilizer or pesticides, everything competes, and the fuel stores itself(as wood), it's bio-degrade able, and continues to grow when not using it, and plants are probably the most efficient solar technology there is. You just have to make sure you don't clear cut, just lightly prune it out so it can easily bounce back, or tree farm. You could also farm high cellulose plants like hemp, dry and bail them, burn them when you need it. This also opens it up for the little guy, you could be an energy farmer!
2) Use the earth. I am sitting in a heated house right now. It is also air conditioned during the summer. Yet the earth 20+ feet underneath my house is 16C(60F) year round. Why aren't new houses built to utilize this? Why is there not a service to convert your house? Think about it, a truck could come by, x-ray for pipes, drills straight down in you subdivision, run some pipes, bam!, free energy.
3) Make better use of space. I have read that they are really notching up solar efficiency. Imagine all that space on roofs of warehouses, factories, subdivisions, etc..., was covered in solar panels. That would rock. Also, think about this, Japan and Germany are the worlds highest solar energy producers, but look at their latitude, solar energy is not just for deserts. Japan and Germany got a solar axis of evil, while the rest of us are stuck in the dark ages.
Cheers. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Food for thought: we are _not_ running out of oil. In fact every year there is more and more oil. In 2005 we had about 55% _more_ oil than we had in 1985.
Source: BP's report on would oil reserves. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2006/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/table_of_proved_oil_reserves_2006.pdf
Additional data: World Oil Reserves Execl Worksheet: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2006/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2006.xls
And yes, these reports are from an oil company. Notice how they actually supply their reports and data. Contrast this with what is basically propaganda coming from the doom and gloom global warming folks. - rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1are you saying these 'execs' would be less interested in their own profit than ensuring the next generation will be happy/healthy/profitable?
- edifice98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Get rid of the Cows. Eat more Chicken.
Cows 'do more harm than cars', says UN
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=421691&in_page_id=1770 - kokorhekkus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About 2)
Local geothermal power with an heatexchanger is indeed a very good idea and has become somewhat popular in Sweden the last decade along with higher energy costs (and with Sweden being as cold as it is). The normal depth of drilled hole for geothermal energy is about 400-500 feet as I understand it. The only problem I'm aware of is that it's not a good idea in relativly densly populated areas (as in suburbs etc) for everone to do it because then you will get a lower return as there is a limit on how fast the heat can be replaced from the surround/below.
A friend of mine has low-below-ground pipes coupled to a heatexchanger in his house and that cuts his heating cost in half compared to using electricity but it's not as effective as a deep hole. - nkthen, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Solar energy is definitely a better solution for us.
http://www.mysolarenergyathome.com - rocketpocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like the DOE's BS list. Two things.
1. Clean Coal- OK it may work but its a little late
2. Hydrogen- I wanted a hydrogen car then I watched "who killed the electric car".
I live in Pennsylvania and the coal we get is not even local it is brought in from an other states because we ran out of usable coal. - Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm eating cow as quickly as I can!
- Nebbie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nope, I think they are more interested in advancing us all, and to do that right now we need the energy from fossil fuels. The comment about the execs running off to an island was a joke.
I might be a bit biased though as I work for a large oil company. I'm far away from management, but I don't think they are evil at all. But some others do. - Tirial, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clean coal? More like less dirty coal. Coal releases more radiation into the environment than modern nuclear facilities.
- spootwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's more at stake then weather our cars have gas. Burning fuels is not good for my health, so it makes sense to stop pumping toxic chemicals into the air.
When it comes to the environment most people usually forget one of these things:
1) If something is even relatively harmful to my health then it's an environmental issue.
2) Being environmental should save me money in the long run, and / or make life easier. (Not paying the hydro bill fits both. While shipping plastic off to india for recycling is both difficult and costly)
Did I miss anything? - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article bugs me. They say this about the efficiency of 'Gratzel solar cells': "it could get up to 33% with the wonders of nanotechnology."
I hate that. What utter BS--basically, a promise has been made on yet non-existant technology. If we had nanotechnology, all sorts of currently impossible things become possible; invoking nanotechnology has become the equivalent of the self-deceived optimist's way of justifying that kind of optimism. Nanotech is the biggest vaporware hype I've ever seen. No realistic article should invoke any technology that isn't within reach, and nanotech (of the kind that the nano-optimists are talking about--effectively, our own man made microbes to do our molecular bidding) definitely isn't within reach. - cvindustries, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unfortunately, wind and hydro are not "harmless" in the eyes of environmentalists. Placed in the path of migratory birds, wind farms are lethal and destructive of the ecosystem. Hydro causes the same sort of problems.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BTW, the article invokes the "wonders of nanotechnology" not once, but twice. See the last item in the list: artificial photosynthesis. This isn't even on the horizon, but it's listed. Why? Because "this is a very long term solution. While much progress has been made in the past decade, (using the wonders of nanotechnology and such) there is still a lot to be done."
Ugh. Spare me the meaningless jargon and drivel. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The only one in the list that creates a consistent and reliable power source in a small space is the nuclear reactor. Coal fired power plants would likely not exist today if it wasn't for the nuclear fear mongering.
- Kamill85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@kokorhekkus: you're wrong, ammount of green plants do not increase, we can safely call it a constant in this equation. Biofuels produce same ammount of CO2 we used to create them, which means CONSTANT is not changed by using them, hence it's not a solution - we have too much CO2 in atmosphere RIGHT NOW. Now, if you make power source that do not produce CO2 AT ALL, then we can talk about decreasing level of it.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good point. If they're going to include other stuff that isn't practical right now, they might as well do fusion. Realistically a century is likely before that's going to be available but that's not a long time period in the larger scheme of things.
- jcwinnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think more elaboration / clarification might help with the recommendation on geothermal. A good recommendation that got passed by in the Great Chicken v Cow Debate.
Some people see geothermal and think "Hot Springs". It also means Ground Source Heat Pumps. Anyone building a home where there is a change of seasons should consider Passive Solar improvements first, then geothermal before high tech like solar cells.
Lastly, I would have to agree about mis- (or dis?) information. Nuclear energy definitely is part of national energy policy for the U.S. and other first world countries. As a person who worked at a Nuclear Power Station, I have to side with those, who urge us to consider the many, many generations affected by the radioactive contamination so blithely advocated. -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is