Alternate Energy

[Schuttenberg]

Although the traditional sources of energy like the fossil fuels and the crude oil has been found to be costly and replete with negative aspects, they still form a dominant source of energy. This can be attributed to the lack of awareness among the people about the other alternate energy sources like the renewable sources of energy. To promote the usage of renewable energy and to tap the huge potential present in the renewable energy sector, the world energy research was formed.

 

The use of fossil fuels has resulted in many negative consequences. It has led to severe pollution, political conflict, economic control and total dependence of countries that lack this natural resource. Now the countries are seeking to control this blind dependence on fossil fuels by adopting alternate sources of energy for their energy needs.

 

Over the years, many alternative renewable energy technologies have been researched and developed. These include solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal energy as well as many others. These sources produce energy by converting the mechanical energy present in them to kinetic energy.

 

mod note: link removed

Edited September 30, 2009 by swansont
remove link

[insane_alien]

is there anything you wished to discuss or did you just sign up to advertise your website?

 

also, fossil fuels are still used not because of a lack of awareness of the negative consequences but because they are cheap. ridiculously cheap compared to many of the renewable sources. solar in particular.

 

it is only recently that prices for renewable generation has got within the feasible range.

[CaptainPanic]

These sources produce energy by converting the mechanical energy present in them to kinetic energy.

 

That doesn;t make a lot of sense to me. Mechanical energy most likely is kinetic energy. Something that moves has kinetic energy.

 

And the wind turbines (or possibly sea turbines) are the only devices that convert kinetic energy into electricity.

Solar panels convert radiation (which is actually heat - the sun is really hot and therefore it radiates) into electricity. And so do all kinds of biomass energy: plants need sunlight to grow.

 

You might want to rephrase that last bit if you plan to put it on your website.

 

I also wonder if we're discussing anything at all here - I think it's just spam (advertising a website).

[padren]

The real reason is that fossil fuels are used are first of course - as insane_alien mentioned, they are cheap, but you could argue the social cost in terms of pollution and long term environmental impact are not represented in the price.

 

Of course:

 

1) The actual costs are not really determinable and the cause of much debate - some of the debate is considered disingenuous and for no other purpose than putting off settling such costs (that would be collected as taxes, used as incentives for renewable/clean energy and offsetting health costs due to pollution, etc)

 

2) The cost of paying those costs in terms of significantly raising energy prices are also debated. If the cost of fuel jumped to include covering the funds needed to counter the ill effects it could have a huge impact on the economy and slow the development of alternative sources - as such we intentionally defer those costs to future generations (though they catch up with us more every year) to stay "productive" and continue advancing technology so we can do away with those fuel types.

 

 

We obviously can't ride the 2nd reason indefinitely though it has been cited as why we avoid various initiatives to reduce fossil fuel consumption. The problem is we need a genuine balanced approach based on a rational thought out plan, but too many parties are too motivated by self interest or fearful that other parties are disingenuous in their contributions to the discussion due to their self interest to really achieve any functional dialog.

 

The plus side is we are approaching the turning point on alternative energy market viability, and as we get closer the cost of incentive programs to fill that gap becomes less cost-prohibitive as the actual price gap continues to close.

 

We will probably have to hit a point where we actually do put huge taxes (ie, adjust for true long term cost) on fossil fuels because technology will reduce those costs too - but to do so at a point where alternative sources have hit the current competitive prices so it doesn't shock the economy.

It's not unlike walking up a teeter-totter and shifting weight gently enough when you get to the middle that you don't slam the other side down. The transition requires delicacy but not to the point of trepidation - and at the same time you don't want unbridled righteous brute force.

 

 

P.S: Your site fails to mention nuclear as a clean energy alternative. If you are concerned about the waste it's worth noting new technologies are developing that can help clean up our existing radioactive waste as a new safe energy source.

[A Tripolation]

I've always wondered why nuclear energy isn't more actively pursued. I, for one, fear the waste and potential meltdown, but are those valid concerns?

[insane_alien]

meltdowns aren't so big of an issue now. infact, long before the reactor core gets hot enough to melt, the thermal expansion and changes to the moderator cause it to go subcritical and the rate of reaction slows down enough so it can't actually get hot enough.

 

and even if you do force a meltdown, there is sufficient containment structure to prevent it getting out., also, the molten matterial tends to spread out a bit and form a puddle(fair enough its a puddle of excruciating death) that isn't an optimal shape to keep the chain reaction going.

 

the waste however is a serious problem. and we have the solution to it, it is just that nobody has allowed anyone to actually implement it.

 

the big hole in stable ground stuff works. infact, there is a whole mess of naturally formed nuclear waste buried in the oklo natural reactor and no giant mutated insectoids have appeared there.

 

and anyway, such a waste dump would not be permanent. we have plans for a way to both extract energy from the wast and render it safe at the same time using neutrons from a fusion reactor. so it only really needs to be down there a century or so.

[A Tripolation]

What do you mean no one has allowed implementation? Aren't nuclear reactors ridiculously profitable after a few years of operation?

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you mean no one has allowed implementation?

 

Concerned citizens who don't want the storage site or nuclear plants anywhere near them. On that note, it would seem that various industries would have a vested interest in keeping the citizens concerned. The concerns aren't always based on real dangers...

[iNow]

Also, in addition to issues with storing the waste and protecting it for 500 years... in addition to guarding against terrorist activities... in addition to the fear felt by the people, there is also the issue of money.

 

It takes a metric assload of money, resources, and time to bring even a single plant online. The up front investment required makes it less attractive than things like solar and wind.

 

 

There's a show called Focus Earth on one of the Discovery sister channels (Planet Green) that did an entire episode this weekend just on nuclear. Interesting approach. Check here to see when it's on near you:

 

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=237.15646.125013.36399.6

Nuclear Power

: Focus Earth investigates nuclear power; where the technology came from, the obstacles it has faced, and what the future might hold for this controversial energy source.

Edited October 4, 2009 by iNow

[CaptainPanic]

Almost a week after the first post and plenty of feedback from us, and the guy hasn't replied yet.

 

I conclude that he's not interested in any discussion, and just wanted to attract some extra visitors to his website.

 

Spam. No surprise actually.

[Horza2002]

People are forgetting that the energy demands of the human race have made most renewable energy source useless! Wind is not good enough to keep up with the demands and solar power is far to expensive to use on a large scale. Geothermal is a very good source...although there are only a few sites around the world where it is pratical to use.

 

Nuclear is the safest and by far the most efficient method of generating electricity we know of! Less people have died from muclear related technology than they have mining for coal or drilling for oil each year! The fact that the waste has such a long halflife is what also makes it so much safer to handle...it doesn't decay so no radiation! Although to be fair, if you ingested it you'd have extreme f-metal posioning which would be worse for you :S

[JillSwift]

Although to be fair, if you ingested it you'd have extreme f-metal posioning which would be worse for you :S

Oh, easily solved with stickers: "Danger: Do not lick the nuclear waste material."

[nec209]

From what people tell me the alternate energy has of now will not keep up with the demad .Now in the future the cost of the alternate energy may go way down and you may get more electricity out of it. People say wind power , tind power ,solar power , dams so on are more powerful now than before and cost less.

 

That say you have city population 500,000 you may need 5 solar power plants now not like before 12 solar power plants , If it was coal , gas or oil only one power plant.

 

This proves that alternate energy has of now cannot keep up with demad but may be in the future they may fix this problem.

 

Some people say cold fusion or fusion power will save the world one day.This is good stuff to look into.

 

Some way out scientist think you can get electricity from lightning or the ionosphere and claim that Nikola Tesla was working on tower to tap into this energy but got paid off.

[nec209]

Intresting .

 

Not sure just how much a power plant has over lightning bolt or just how low the power of a lightning is.

 

 

 

Since the late 1980s there have been several attempts to investigate the possibility of harvesting energy from lightning. While a single bolt of lightning carries relatively very little energy, this energy is concentrated in a small location and is passed during an extremely short period of time (milliseconds); therefore, extremely high electrical power is involved.[114] It has been proposed that the energy contained in lightning be used to generate hydrogen from water, or to harness the energy from rapid heating of water due to lightning.[115]

 

A technology capable of harvesting lightning energy would need to be able to rapidly capture the high power involved in a lightning bolt. Several schemes have been proposed, but the low energy involved in each lightning bolt render lightning power harvesting from ground based lightning rods as impractical.[116] According to Northeastern University physicists Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, while a lightning bolt carries a few million joules of energy, that is very little relative to the rate at which energy is used in a typical household. Additionally, lightning is sporadic, and therefore energy would have to be collected and stored; it is difficult to convert high-voltage electrical power to the lower-voltage power that can be stored.[115]

 

In the summer of 2007, an alternative energy company called Alternate Energy Holdings (AEH) tested a method for capturing the energy in lightning bolts. The design for the system had been purchased from an Illinois inventor named Steve LeRoy, who had reportedly been able to power a 60-watt light bulb for 20 minutes using the energy captured from a small flash of artificial lightning. The method involved a tower, a means of shunting off a large portion of the incoming energy, and a capacitor to store the rest. According to Donald Gillispie, CEO of AEH, they "couldn't make it work," although "given enough time and money, you could probably scale this thing up... it's not black magic; it's truly math and science, and it could happen."[117]

 

According to Dr. Martin A. Uman, co-director of the Lightning Research Laboratory at the University of Florida and a leading authority on lightning,[118] a single lighting strike, while fast and bright, contains very little energy, and dozens of lighting towers like those used in the system tested by AEH would be needed to operate five 100-watt light bulbs for the course of a year. When interviewed by The New York Times, he stated that the energy in a thunderstorm is comparable to that of an atomic bomb, but trying to harvest the energy of lightning from the ground is "hopeless".[117]

[nec209]

Just update but LA energy infrastructure is so overstressed they are talking about rolling black outs.

 

And May Ban Big TVs !!