Alternative Energy

[Chi]

I wanted to sprout this debate.

After watching the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?" I've watched several programs and heard several the debates on the matter, i've come to the realization that there are options but none of which seems economically viable at the moment.



Hydro cell Technology
Fossil Fuels
Electric technologies
Solar Tecnologies
Coal
Nuclear
Green energy

Meanwhile these are the bases set for their applications in the discussions.


Transportation
Home Energies

I would like to hear what you think will be good or bad alternative energy source. But keep in mind the realm of the debate has to deal with


Economic Feasability
Enviromental Concerns
Rising Resource demands in developing countries (ie. China, India and Pakistan to name a few)

So lets hear some opinions.

[Dark Fire]

Quite honestly I think we are complete idiots for not taking advantage of green energy. I live in Riverside CA and just off the 60frwy is miles and miles of desert there could be solar panels up and down the desert I also live by the Santa Anna River which could have a hydro turbine on it. We're so dependent on fossil fuel and for practically no reason at all

[Artemis]

I support the usage of alternative energies, and wish that it would become more prominent in the ways we create electrical energy among other resources, but we have to see the problems with alternative energies.

Such as large hydroelectricity dams and turbines can affect the physical shape of rivers and waterways, killing local wildlife and plants. As well, almost practically every other form of alternative energy is extremely costly to develop and maintain, even for developed nations.

We've become reliant of fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy because it was the resources we originally found useful to create electricity, and as humans, we find it hard to transition, although it is slowly moving in that direction.

Of course, there are plenty we can do to make this transition faster along with more than plenty that big oil companies and other energy companies could do to speed up the process, but we still have to accept that the transition will be slow and tedious.

But, hopefully, we'll get there.
So put in consideration the downfalls and costs that are evident in using alternative energy sources.

[Reyin]

Economically speaking, if we (the western world, and myself as an American) are not using fossil fuels because of their cheap energy, then someone else will. This is a somewhat Machiavellian standpoint but if we aren't using the fossil fuels then someone else will get the economic advantages they bring. That being said there are other means of energy that are cheap, and as such we should pursue them for economical reasons, if for no other purpose than to weaken our dependence upon other countries for energy. It is not my intention to sound heartless, in fact the opposite is rather true, some of my favorite pastimes are gardening and enjoying the outdoors and I generally have a strong opinion about keeping our planet from collapsing environmentally.

There are many alternatives to fossil fuels, but the one I've researched the most, and know the most about is nuclear.

Environmentally speaking, nuclear energy is far more green than people think. The amount of waste produced from a nuclear power plant in a year fits in a medium sized box, whereas coal plants spew on average around 100,000 tons of sulfur-dioxide into the atmosphere during a years time. In much of the Appalachian region of the US they suffer from acid rain caused by the burning of unclean coal. Some people are concerned about ambient radiation given off by nuclear plants, but the truth is I'm getting more radiation staring at my CRT computer monitor than I would living next to a nuclear power plant. Many people also worry about the safety of a nuclear power plant because they associate them with nuclear bombs. The truth is nuclear power plants use a fuel that is far less enriched than the materials used in bombs. In addition to the materials used the reaction is controlled. Lastly there are those that are concerned with the possibility of a meltdown; modern nuclear power plants, such as those currently in use in France, have several fail-safe mechanisms to prevent disasters from happening. Statistically speaking the number of deaths accounted for over the next 50 years from Chernobyl is 1000 deaths, versus the 10,000 deaths associated with coal each year.

As far as being economically viable, nuclear energy is close to the same cost in terms of total cost per megawatt hour as coal. This (http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm) is a great site which explains the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy.

In conclusion it may seem like my stance is not totally clear based on the first paragraph, but truth be told I'm totally for alternative sources of energy.

[doobiesnacks]

electric cars were already in production and in the market, but were gotten rid of by our corrupt government! Whatever the scandals and cover ups and what not around that whole case, it remains reality however that we all could be running electric cars instead of burning fuel.
go to youtube yourself and watch electric cars smoke a ferrari!

As for other energies. Solar and wind make bundles of electricity just right out of the atmosphere we gather life. Is it only out of convenience that we mostly burn gas? That brings up other thoughts of preservation as much as alternative sources. We have to be resourceful and not wasteful with what we do have.

Is it possible to get as hot a flame or temperature to replace what gasses can burn? Perhaps that is a set back on replacing them if that is indeed the case.

nuclear power should have never come out of mr MCsquared's hands.. it was one of those critical mistakes..

My opinion on energy sources is just not to burn poisons into our atmosphere. I mean we are poisoned every day slowly but surely, and damn that is heavy imo and should be STOPped!

[Artemis]

No one denies the need for change, doobiesnacks.
But you have to remember, there are many governments involved.
If you imply that say, the US Government is corrupt, remember there are others.

Many developing nations require huge amounts of energy to ensure that their limited economies are growing and to support the usually large population living within the country. Their governments, even though many would not have thought about it, have not been able to change their methods because of the proven efficiency and reliability on of the energy source.

Taken into account, you can't simply just say 'we need to change'.
Like Reyin notes, if a huge developed nation doesn't use the coal, oil or gas, then another country would.

The problem is international. Although, it is moving correctly.
Even if the corrupt governments don't want it to. :)

[SolBeowulf19]

The only real problem I see with integrating Alternative energies, at least from a transportation standpoint, is that fact of the economics. Now, say you have an environmentally friendly new fuel, how would you get it onto the market? You would not only have to start making cars that run off of this, but also start making fueling stations throughout whatever country it is you live in. You would have to have some sort of gov't grant, or a large benefactor to make this work. (Sorry, this is just one example to the cons, I can't think of much else right now after only being awake for about an hour. Sorry.)

[Chi]

Well my issue is this, our socio-economic needs are so intertwined with the dependency of fossil fuels. Back in the 1950s or 60s there were studies done indicating that Fossil fuels are a limited resource and that we should immediately start researching for alternative fuels. Those same scientists were discredited and sent home because by that time the US economy had started to boom because of Oil findings in the middle east, Africa and other countries. Now 50-60 years later we're no better off then we were all those years ago.

Matter of fact it can be said we're worse off because now we're so dependent on it both here and everywhere else that once it runs out, that's it we can expect to see a catastrophic failure in all economies, people can't get to work because the price of gas is too high or there isn't any gas at all. Fossil fuels is the cheap reliable way to provide energy and that exploring other methods is viable but unprofitable. Take the electric car for instance the american consumer didn't want to buy it because of the minor inconvenience of having to recharge the battery every night. But the benefit was that cheaper maintenance costs, no polluting the environment. But the cars were not asthetically pleasing. So people didn't want to buy it. Plus the oil lobbies said if the car complanies produced cars like that they would see decreased profits. Which they did in the areas of manintenance costs and such. An electic car only costs 1/4 of the costs to maintain after purchase then an oil based car. So Clinton made a compromise by way of hybrid and in the intrest of economic stimulation decided more jobs were to be had by hydrogen fuel cell technologies. 8 years later however we have mad no real progress and they estimate that the purchase of hydrogen fuel cell will cost somewhere around 150-1000 dollars per tank despite it being the most abundant element in the Universe mind you. All the more to make us more dependent on the rising cost of gas prices. Because $4-5 a gallon is much cheaper then $150-1000. And i do believe you'd travel the same distance. While with electric hybrids you get twice the distance for the same price and with electric cars you might see a slight rise on your electric build. Even now there's a research company that found a way to use the friction of the moving wheels to recharge a second battery while its running on one and when one is 10% depleted it automatically switches and runs on the second battery respectively charging the first one. I don't know about you guys but i'd much rather that car then my 27mpg car right now.

[doobiesnacks]

our so called governments have PLENTY of revenue and resources to go around the whole world.. It is a matter of what they are investing in to what they could be investing in.

In order for change to come about the whole system would have to be revolution style revamped. Clearly not possible, but take all the selfish motives away and the entire planet could be fruitful, educated and healthy!
Clean natural resources are in abundance but ignored.. why? Because of profit and egotistical abuse and pillage of fellow living organisms. It makes absolutely NO sense to continue using the power sources that BURN UP and POISON us our environment!
One has to look past the systematic facade that confuses the heck out of us and see the bare minimum at its root and start thinking from there, or we are never going to change our lifestyle to an "alternative source" way!

Screw the government just for a second, and think of the humane element. Corporation and tycoon have been profiting enough, or not?

[Reyin]

Take the electric car for instance the american consumer didn't want to buy it because of the minor inconvenience of having to recharge the battery every night. But the benefit was that cheaper maintenance costs, no polluting the environment.

I'm glad you brought this up, because in fact there are no purely electric cars, they're effectively coal cars in most places, the only exceptions are where people get their electricity from other sources. Think about it, you plug your car into the wall to charge it's battery. The electricity from the wall doesn't magically appear. In most places around the United States the electricity comes from burning coal, which if I'm not mistaken is the primary source of electricity for most of the rest of the world as well.

If we really want an economically viable green solution we need to focus on nuclear and hydroelectric energy. At the moment they are the most viable large-scale solutions in terms of generating electricity. While both do have their own problems (uranium mining/fish habitat destruction) they are both economically viable alternatives to burning coal. Their low cost in comparison to other forms of energy production are what really makes them contenders, because unfortunately the cogs of the world are greased with money. A hydroelectric plant has a large initial cost, but their long term energy costs are much lower than just about any other source of power; as I said before, they are generally very eco-friendly except when it comes to fish and marine habitat. I won't address nuclear since I went over it in my previous post, but it is suffice to say that it is also much more environmentally friendly than most people are lead to believe.

Now to get back to cars, hybrid cars are a good way to not only save money, but to generate less pollution. Hydrogen cars are still in development, but companies such as Honda and Toyota are investing some serious money. They know how it's going to work, they are eventually going to have to offer alternatives. One concern with hydrogen cars has been, will they blow up like the Hindenburg when they roll since they rely on hydrogen for power. The truth is these vehicles are just as safe as any other car. This (http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/archives/2005/dec/responders.asp)is a good site for some quick facts on their safety and this (http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/FAQs.htm) is a good site for some facts about hydrogen fuel in general.

[Chi]

The problem I have isn't the safety risk that comes with those hydrogen cars, the problem is having to pay for something like Hydrogen. Think about it, with an electric car you don't really have to pay to run you car ever again. But with Hydrogen cell technologies you do... you have to pay for it. It's like finding a way to charge someone for breathing. I dunno it sounds stupid to me. Especially since in my previous posts they found ways to make the batteries interchangeable so you may not even need to plug in your electric car anymore.

I mean we can send things to mars and have it come back but we can find a way to get more milage out of an electric car. Plus there's always the possibilitie of putting a solar panel like cover on the car itself so during the day the battery stays charged. And you can drive long distances with that on top of the other things i've mentioned. Soon enough we'll be like Europe and be charged $8 a gallon for gas. Which somehow the oil companies will still see their highest profits ever.

[Reyin]

ways to make the batteries interchangeable so you may not even need to plug in your electric car anymore.

Perpetual motion is impossible because there will always be heat given off from friction and therefore energy lost, but I do think it's a fascinating idea. If nothing else it may enable you to actually travel long distances on the average electric car if it became a standard feature. Also the reason hydrogen cars cost what they do at the moment is "the most inexpensive production method was using steam reformation of natural gas (heating methane under high pressure with a catalyst in a steam atmosphere)." Thats from the site I linked. Which explains the cost, and ya I totally agree electric cars are probably the most economically viable solution, but my point was that at the moment they're really not as eco-friendly as people think.

[Chi]

well my argument there is motion/transportation based, i am also looking for the link that shows and explain the perpetual motion that's used for the dual battery system since its been some months since i saw it. When i have more time i'll discuss other aspects of the Alternative energy argument like the powering of the home and industry by means of Nuclear energy and its alternatives.

[Sirius]

I think solar power is the best potential free power source we have and we should be doing more to harness it. When the sun is shining you don't waste any of it, you store excess energy in batteries that can be used when the sun is not shining on a raining day or so.

Also, you can actually purchase solar panels and attach them to your house. My friend does this. From what I hear if 50% of the electricity you use is produced by you, then you only pay for 50% of what you otherwise would. If you produce over 100% of what you use the power company actually pays you for the extra electricity you generate.

[Reyin]

The biggest problem with solar energy is the cost. It's a big turn off to homeowners when they realize it's going to cost between $75,000-$100,000 to buy the equipment to cover the average household's electricity. Unfortunately the biggest drive for change is money, not the environment.

What you were talking about with generation and costs, I talked to someone once who had a small hydro-electric setup on a creek on their property and they actually generated more than they used, so the power company was actually required by law to pay them for it.

[doobiesnacks]

The biggest problem with solar energy is the cost. It's a big turn off to homeowners when they realize it's going to cost between $75,000-$100,000 to buy the equipment to cover the average household's electricity. Unfortunately the biggest drive for change is money, not the environment.

What you were talking about with generation and costs, I talked to someone once who had a small hydro-electric setup on a creek on their property and they actually generated more than they used, so the power company was actually required by law to pay them for it.
hahahahaha

the problem is not the cost but where the money is being utilized by our government. Billions of dollars to use and you are telling me money is an issue?

To me it only makes sense to harness the environment's energy and use it healthy to its own cycle as to not destroy it..

Solar, wind and water power are plenty if we only wanted!

[Reyin]

hahahahaha

the problem is not the cost but where the money is being utilized by our government. Billions of dollars to use and you are telling me money is an issue?

To me it only makes sense to harness the environment's energy and use it healthy to its own cycle as to not destroy it..

Solar, wind and water power are plenty if we only wanted!

Did you just ignore the word homeowners... last time I checked the government didn't own all the houses in the country. Also you make it sound like we can wave a magical wand and get what we want. Your argument is basically "LOL THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BLAME AGAIN." What you're saying is the government should foot the bill on providing alternative energy sources for everyone... for free. Oh wait there isn't such a thing as free, if you wanted them to do so, then be prepared to lose another 20-50% out of your paychecks. There is no magical money tree with which everyone can pay for everything.

I'm not saying that I disagree that the U.S. Government should spend more to help promote alternative energy sources (there was a bill passed but then congress never passed the second bill allocating the funds for it.) On the contrary, I'm totally for alternative energy, but you may have noticed that the world runs on money. The difference is, I think the government should reallocate funds to be used for the expansion of alternative energy sources. This might be what you were trying to say but to be honest I can't tell. Also I'm not going to pretend like I know where they should take the money from to pay for it. I'm being practical.

[Sirius]

The biggest problem with solar energy is the cost. It's a big turn off to homeowners when they realize it's going to cost between $75,000-$100,000 to buy the equipment to cover the average household's electricity. Unfortunately the biggest drive for change is money, not the environment.

What you were talking about with generation and costs, I talked to someone once who had a small hydro-electric setup on a creek on their property and they actually generated more than they used, so the power company was actually required by law to pay them for it.

You don't need to cover all of your household electricity needs, if you want you can buy a few panels and cover only a fraction. It would still reduce your electricity payment and it's pollution free.

Solar power also comes with the advantage of being a power source when the main grid is knocked out.

[Reyin]

You don't need to cover all of your household electricity needs, if you want you can buy a few panels and cover only a fraction. You can buy a few small panels and only cover part of what you need and it would reduce your electricity payment.

Yea I read that in an article, and I understand that, it's just that to cover 25% of your needs is still $16-20000. It would reduce your payment, but the problem is the initial cost is still so high that it's hard to justify.

Solar power also comes with the advantage of being a power source when the main grid is knocked out.

It also comes with the disadvantage of generating much less electricity on cloudy days, but I do definitely see it's viability for this. If I lived in a rural area I would definitely consider it for this reason. Also most setups to have batteries for storing any excess electricity, which may make up for weather disadvantage. When you're not home and everything is turned off (other than a few appliances like a refrigerator) you can probably store up a good bit.

[Sirius]

Yeah most people who buy solar panels nowadays own mobile homes. It allows them to use electric devices on the go without having to be connected directly to the main grid.

I do think one of the reasons the costs are so high is because the market for solar panels is very small. A larger market usually allows for more efficient mass production methods.

[MasterX25]

First of all, I want to say that Bio fuel is not the alternative we should be looking at. If it was used, we will be seeing soaring price of all sort of plants, this include rice. What will happen to those poor country citizen when they could just afford rice, than suddenly it will rise, and probably continue to rise, and there goes rice out the window, since it is used for fuel rather than food. Its happening right now, and it needs to stop.

Anyway, I personally think the solar power is the best alternative. Any of you watch Gundam 00. If you haven't, ill give you a brief detail. The world has run out of fossil fuel so the super power nations decided to build solar satellite from the ground to space, something like 5000 km long or something. Why? Because as sun light enters our atmosphere, a lot is bounce away, this means we are only getting a fractions of what we get in space. Building these structures I mean will take hundreds of years, but the results is the important thing. My dad is a engineer and he tells me that if we can absorb 100% of the sunlight, than we can power the world for one year (thats a lot). So back to Gundam 00, think of how many humongous solar panel we can build in space. And the fact that there will always be light, we will be provided with 24 hours of energy. The solar satellite idea was actually made by a Russian engineer, so the anime actually based it of his idea, and also named the character in the anime after his surname, or first name, I forgot.
Anyway, the thing is that we need to research in developing solar technology. We can't stick with fossil fuel forever, and nuclear power won't last forever. I think I read somewhere that the USA military are planning to build solar satellite which will transfer the energy into a concentrated beam and will make contact on the Earth surface where are receiver will be place to turn the beam back into energy.

[Reyin]

solar satellite from the ground to space, something like 5000 km long or something. Why? Because as sun light enters our atmosphere, a lot is bounce away, this means we are only getting a fractions of what we get in space. Building these structures I mean will take hundreds of years, but the results is the important thing.

I've actually read about this as an option, the problem they're trying to sort out is the most efficient way to get the power then on to the earth from the satellite. In the same article I learned about it, they talked about using microwaves or other radiation waves to beam it back, the problem is that this all is still very costly. I could see someone trying it in a few decades, but right now the cost of fossil fuels is cheap enough that people aren't willing to front the investment for it. The average communication satellite costs tens/hundreds of millions of dollars, I would think something like this would cost even more. I'm not saying it isn't an alternative, I actually think if they got it working it probably would be one of the best possible solutions, the only problem is once again the cost.

What you said about the rays of light bouncing off the atmosphere is totally correct though, the reason satellites in space use solar panels is because they are much more potent outside of the atmosphere. A clear example of this is, why the sky is blue and why sunsets are different colors; it's because light is being refracted and reflected around in the atmosphere and the more there is in between us and the sun, the fewer the number of wavelengths of visible light that can enter through (which is why red and orange are always the color of the sun when it's on the horizon.)

In the end, solar energy is probably the best solution environmentally, but because of its cost we probably won't see it in widespread use for several decades to come. For now I think research on less expensive photo voltaic cells/panels would be the best way to expand solar energy's use. If we could find a way to make it cheap enough that it would pay for itself in a matter of 5, or even 15 years, then I think we would see a lot more people using it.

[Hōzukimaru]

Here in South Africa we are currently experiencing a very serious power shortage. Our main power supplier (ESKOM) together with our goverment, has failed miserably in planning for the future - in regards with keeping up with the growing power demand and investing in new, alternative sources of energy.

Now, we have no choice but to accept (begrudgingly) rolling black-outs (or as the government likes to call it "load shedding") for hours on end (4-8hours) or even days without power. I can not begin to share the anger; frustration and general disruption caused by this to all aspects of daily life. Just imagine a hospital with no power to care for patients or just trying to get home (30km) in traffic and only getting there after 3-4 hours of pain and HELL!

Other countries should learn from this sad, pathetic situation and should start taking alternative sources of energy serious. Governments should stop using "going green" as a political tool to win votes and make it a top priority. Believe me when I say, the future is going to be a dark place without it!

[MasterX25]

Dude going green is not the easiest thing. New Zealand signed the Kyoto agreement which means that we must be a greener country(we are already green, I say we are one of the cleanest country in the world, literally). Being green pushes up the cost of everything, I mean if you come to my country and fuel up your car, you would be saying WTF!!!! Than if we become greener, you would go home without a second thought. Our world deteriorating is invitable, the only possible way to fix our world is go back to the stone age. I say, screw being green, spend EVERYTHING ON RESEARCH, by the time we become green, economy will collapse, business will fail and we will ALL become poorer than what we are now.

EDIT: I mean that.