Verifying scientific accuracy

[coconutterly88]

Hello!

 

I'm brand new to this site, though have lurked somewhat within some interesting existing posts - it's apparent that there's an abundance of knowledge and expertise here, therefore I'm wondering whether any of you guys would be willing to give up a little time to lend me your veritable intellectual clout?

 

I'm in the process of writing a novel with a pivotal character discovering a sustainable energy source, essentially the genre is more thriller/mystery taking other plot developments into consideration but what I do not want to do is (Dan Brown style) create an absolutely ridiculous, infuriating implausible scientific situation - in truth, I'm not much of a scientist - at least not in the academic sense of the word - although I maintain a profound general interest in the why's and what's of my surroundings - hence why I'm seeking your assistance.

 

I've superficially researched the topic and came up with information relating to biomass/gas as a source of sustainable energy, am aware of traditional alternatives - harnessing the elements - though would like opinions on alternative theories - please be a little patient, what I may lack in the appropriate comprehension of terminology, I make up for in willingness to learn, I assure you!

 

Sincerely looking forward to any responses on this,

 

Thanks!

 

Chloe.

[Enthalpy]

Hope to have understood the question...

 

Biomass is usable quickly with present technology, storable, nearly affordable - but from my former estimates we have too little farmland to answer all our energy needs, even if converting cellulosis. It would need to use deserts, Ocean floor...

 

Geothermy - wind - Solar are definitely abundant enough. They may be available when we need them (Solar thermal...) and affordable; right now they're roughly as expensive as nuclear electricity, which means hugely more expensive than gas and coal.

[coconutterly88]

Hope to have understood the question...

 

Biomass is usable quickly with present technology, storable, nearly affordable - but from my former estimates we have too little farmland to answer all our energy needs, even if converting cellulosis. It would need to use deserts, Ocean floor...

 

Geothermy - wind - Solar are definitely abundant enough. They may be available when we need them (Solar thermal...) and affordable; right now they're roughly as expensive as nuclear electricity, which means hugely more expensive than gas and coal.

 

Thanks so much for your response. If the available land mass is an issue for the potential expansion of biomass as a source of renewable energy I can eradicate that as a possibility, would it also be correct to say that biomass would generate large carbon emissions? (By large I mean relative to wind/solar, which I would assume generate very little if any? Appreciate you bearing with me!).

In terms of solar energy, could you please explain why this is such an expensive option? Eg- materials used are scarce, expertise involved in establishing panels/units. Also - is there a feasible way that solar energy could be harnessed and transported in a physical sense across long (1000+) geographical distances?

 

Thanks again in advance!