[Chinney]

In these times of concerns about energy supplies, what do you think offers the best hope for a main source of energy for the world in 50 or so years? I am not excluding fossil fuel, because although some say that we are running out and/or that such sources are simply too environmentally destructive to continue to use in the long-term, others think that we will continue finding more than adequate sources and that environmental concerns have been over-emphasized.

I am asking the question in a general manner, not distinguishing between uses of energy, because most forms of energy are actually pretty adaptable to different uses, or – I think – will be in the future. Fossil fuels can make electricity. Sources that produce electricity will eventually be sources, I think, for fuels (i.e., hydrogen). Also, I have not identified hydrogen itself as a source, as it is more of an intermediary than a source on its own (other energy sources are needed to isolate hydrogen to be used as energy).

I also have not put “Combination of the above” as a choice. I think that it goes without saying that some “Combination of the above” will be used. I just want your views about which source shows the most long-term promise.

[Bryson]

I say nuclear. Fission now, fusion if they can make it work.

Of the others, the "clean" stuff just isn't efficent enough. Yes, nuclear power produces waste, but are fossil fuels perfectly clean for the envioronment? And most of the things we "know" about nuclear power are 1980s technology. I reckon we can make it work for us now.

[kscherer]

We should focus heavily on solar and wind technologies. Much money was spent to determine if it was feasible ($1billion) and our wonderfully well-meaning leaders decided it wasn't worth the trouble. Too bad, considering that most of the boundaries have been hurdled in Europe. Wind and solar technology there has boomed in the last decade.

Every new home, office structure and warehouse should be roofed with low-glare solar panels. Every tall structure should have wind turbines and every new subdivision should have a big ol' wind turbine.

We should also continue to explore the corn-for-alcohol resources that would put millions of unused acres to use and many farmers back into business.

All of this should be backed up by on-demand nuclear reactors that basically sit idle until needed.

Fuel issues are phony, IMO, and drummed up to maintain the stanglehold the oil industry has over our lives.

[Chinney]

I should have included bio-generated fuels as an option. You can put that down as "Other" if you want to choose that.

[DMBand0026]

I voted for the wrong one because I'm stupid. For some reason I selected Geo-Thermal...but that was stupid of me.

I really think it's going to be hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles and a combo of bio fuels (ethanol, alcohol, hydrogen) as well. For large scale energy needs I think it's going to be a combo of Nuclear Fusion and solar/wind/hydroelectric.

I don't think there's one answer to all of our problems. We're in a situation now where we're all relying on one or two energy sources for everything with the heaviest reliance on fossil fuels. We've seen the problems that this situation has caused.

If we want an effective, relatively low cost, and long term solution, one energy source isn't the answer, it's a combo of a few different types.

Also, I think that we'll see a big jump in efficiency in the future as well. Not in terms of energy production, rather, we'll see it in how energized devices make use of that energy.

If people think that 50mpg on a hybrid is the best milage we'll ever see, they are sadly mistaken. We'll see an increase in engine efficiency as well as a move away from fossil fuels. A big jump in efficiency would make alternative fuels like ethanol more practical as ethanol by itself isn't very efficient.

Also, in the home. A regular incandescent light bulb is one of the most inefficient things in the home. In the not so distant future we're going to see incandescents replaced by a combo of fiber optics and LEDs. Both are less expensive and LEDs use a tiny fraction of the amount of energy a regular bulb uses and they give off more light.

We certainly won't see our energy problems go away any time soon, but if we get smart about it and use better sources of energy and more energy efficient devices than we'll solve our crisis.

[oldmacfan]

The Hydrogen economy is coming, it will change the world as we know it and it only made the list as the other option????

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan The Hydrogen economy is coming, it will change the world as we know it and it only made the list as the other option????

See my first post. Hydrogen was deliberately excluded as a source. I said "Also, I have not identified hydrogen itself as a source, as it is more of an intermediary than a source on its own (other energy sources are needed to isolate hydrogen to be used as energy)." I think hydrogen will be very important - since the whole issue of an intermediary and of storage is absolutely key. But it is not a source in and of itself.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by Chinney See my first post. Hydrogen was deliberately excluded as a source. I said "Also, I have not identified hydrogen itself as a source, as it is more of an intermediary than a source on its own (other energy sources are needed to isolate hydrogen to be used as energy)." I think hydrogen will be very important - since the whole issue of an intermediary and of storage is absolutely key. But it is not a source in and of itself.

The problem is your reasons for excluding Hydrogen are silly at best. Fossil fuels need other energy sources to isolate them, so does uranium.

You need to do more research on Hydrogen before you dismiss it. You have companies working on ways of converting water on the fly to harness the power of Hydrogen. You have scientist working with single celled organisms that would create hydrogen as a by product.

In these times of concerns about energy supplies, what do you think offers the best hope for a main source of energy for the world in 50 or so years?

This is your question not mine.

I just want your views about which source shows the most long-term promise.

And I answered with the solution.

[Wrao]

I'm thinking nuclear will get a resurgence in popularity in the next decade or so. I think this will largely be done by countries other than the US, but eventually the US will be like "ey, wtf? break me off a piece o that"

I'd personally like to see tidal power utilized some more. Not necessarily for efficiency or practicality but because it's damn awesome.

Also, I think that whatever is the next big thing, will come alongside breakthroughs in battery technology. To the point where in a decade we may be able to use our laptops for a week at a time without recharge.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Nuclear is the future

At least I hope so since that's what will be bringing in the dough to my household :-P

(girlfriend is a chem e/nuclear e major)

[atomicbartbeans]

My Honors Chemistry teacher (11th grade) played the chief role in designing the tokamak containment torus, used to hold a nuclear fusion reaction.

She says they're damn close to making fusion viable.

[BlueRabbit]

Of course it's nuclear fusion. According to Sim City 2000, it'll get invented around 2052 or so. In the meantime, solar is pretty good and non-polluting. You can also use it on a small scale really easily.

Edit: But wait, there's more! According to Back to the Future, we should have personal "Mr. Fusion" devices in our cars by 2015. I take this to be the absolute and final truth about the matter.

[BarracksSi]

Solar is enough to give a household a surplus of energy -- why wouldn't it work?

We'd have to collectively change our way of thinking in regards to energy sales & distribution. Solar works best on a small scale. Building huge solar electric plants is a pain in the ass, but it's much easier to install a system on your house.

The technologies aren't the problem. It's the concept of large, centralized commercial energy companies that's going to need major revision for any progress to be made.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Solar is enough to give a household a surplus of energy -- why wouldn't it work?

What's this "sun" you speak of? I live in pittsburgh.

[alcimedes]

Yeah, try MN where you get weeks at a time with zero sun some months. Solar is crap. Take into account the energy it takes to make the panels, the chemicals used etc. and it starts looking worse real quick.

Bio fuels have all sorts of wicked by-products when they're burned. No one wants to deal with it because bio fuels are where the money is, but we work with both ethonal and bio diesel, and there are some serious issues with compounds released when they're burned.

Hydro screws up wildlife too much to be worth it, and it's limited to oceans. (river hydro energy is way too destuctive)

Geo thermal might have options, but cooling the earth's core gives me the heebee jeebies.

Wind energy works pretty well.

Fission works well, but the crap you're left with is evil. Granted we'll probably be able to use those compounds in 20 years time, they're just high energy minerals. Still, it's a second best solution.

Fusion has no evil by-products, extremely high energy and gives you a net positive on how much energy you get. It's the only real future we have in energy as far as I'm concerned.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan The problem is your reasons for excluding Hydrogen are silly at best. Fossil fuels need other energy sources to isolate them, so does uranium. You need to do more research on Hydrogen before you dismiss it. You have companies working on ways of converting water on the fly to harness the power of Hydrogen. You have scientist working with single celled organisms that would create hydrogen as a by product.

Internet debates are a great place for misunderstandings. I am sorry if my remarks seemed dismissive of hydrogen power. Actually, I am very much a believer in the future of hydrogen power – having efficient and ubiquitous exploitation of hydrogen in place is absolutely key for what I envision as the most promising future – solar power which is stored and otherwise used through hydrogen cells or direct hydrogen fuel itself.

I’ll also acknowledge that it takes energy to exploit other energy sources, not just hydrogen. Also, it is true that my categorizations of energy sources can be criticized as arbitrary – after all, even wind and hydroelectric and, indeed, fossil fuels, could be seen as mere “intermediaries” of solar power – which in turn is, of course, just (remote) nuclear fusion.

That being said, after thinking about it before setting up the poll, I had a hard time categorizing hydrogen created through further refinement of fossil fuels (the dominant source, so far) or through electrolysis (the likely growth area of the immediate future) as a separate power source from the fossil fuels and electricity used to create it. The distinction I see from other power sources that also need energy to be produced is that, in the case of these other energy sources, the additional energy used to exploit them is used to unlock the greater potential energy already in the power source. In the case of hydrogen made from fossil fuels and electricity, it is more a case of a transformation (and incomplete transformation at that) of the potential energy in the fossil fuels and electricity into a different storage medium. (The hydrogen from bacterial sources is an interesting alternative, however, and I’d like to know more about that.)

So that’s why I categorized things the way I did. A bit arbitrary I admit, but I certainly meant no insult to hydrogen or to you.

[Kickaha]

Kickaha's Vision of the Future:

Hydrogen salts are the universal intermediate energy storage format. Batteries suck.

Electricity is the universal energy *transfer* format.

Small power generation stations can then pop up anywhere they want, and then either store as hydrogen locally, or distribute onto an electric grid.

Users can tap off the grid, and keep a small store of hydrogen on hand for local power production during peak times.

Net effect: all the hoops we have to jump through now to keep the electrical grid stable and effective become basically moot, as H2 can be used to store excess during peak production, and used to produce electricity again during peak use, on a grid-wide *or local* basis.

Everyone gets to choose the mix of power use/generation and storage/transfer that is right for them.

Hydro, sun, wind, fossil, nuclear... doesn't matter, once the above infrastructure is in place, any of them can be used in whatever mix is right.

[geneman]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Hydrogen salts are the universal intermediate energy storage format. Batteries suck.

I was thinking about mentioning this. Recent discovery got us one step closer (only English article I could find). The problem with H2 is, it's a gas. Very inconvenient to store and not to safe either. In this case it is stored as an ammonia (NH4+) salt and released via catalyst at temps around 350C (so this probably wont work in your next powerbook ) Very interesting and certainly lots of potential in the use of hydrogen releasing compounds for storage.

Now if we could only get the fusion part working...

I also believe oil will be phased out of the transportation industry, and primarily used for its many other functions (e.g. plastics). As discussed in the gas-price-thread, supply will fall and allow other more price efficient fuels to enter the transportation arena.

[InactionMan]

I voted for Wind but it'll have to be a combo of a bunch of them. Hopefully, it'll be financially feasible for homeowners to work to get themselves off the grid (or less reliant on the current system). Cities will be hooked up to district energy, houses will have solar panels on the roofs and geo-thermal where possible. Massive wind farms will pop up.

In the short term, I just want Ontario to stop relying on freaking coal burning plants for our energy. The Swedes use wood pellets instead. Canada has lots of wood (and surely lots of usable refuse from our massive timber industry). Coal is just so old-timey and filthy.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by Chinney So that’s why I categorized things the way I did. A bit arbitrary I admit, but I certainly meant no insult to hydrogen or to you.

I took none.

Hydrogen has a huge potential to change everything when it comes to fueling the economy.

Solar might be the first way we start converting it when the efficiencies of solar cells increases to a level where the economies are in line. We also need the ability to ship it to where we need it safely, this is a huge challenge.

I hope to see the day when every house has Solar power for heating, cooling, electricity, and for producing hydrogen for filling up our cars at home and for the rainy days when the sun don't shine. I am not sure how efficient Solar Cells have to be to make this possible, but I hope it is in my life time. The utilities would have to change, maybe the natural gas/heating oil/propane companies would turn more service oriented and you would pay them monthly to maintain the hydrogen production end of your home. The electric companies could maintain the solar electric equipment portion of the deal. All the equipment could be monitored remotely and these service companies would know you need a fix sometimes before you do. Now all of this might work well outside of densely populated area's (big cities), and some creative thinking would be required to make it work in these other area's.

Maybe the surplus Hydogen production would be purchased at a set rate by the utilities and supplied to area's that are not producing enough at a set rate.

[Banana]

Wow.... Everyones going off with their complex solution to a simple problem. All of proposals above are merely cover up for symptoms but doent fix the problem itself.

The root of energy problem is this- we need a mechanism of extracting work from heat.

That's it. Seriously.

*ducks*

[scratt]

Wow! It must be poll season again...

Watch out for more polls....

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by Banana Wow.... Everyones going off with their complex solution to a simple problem. All of proposals above are merely cover up for symptoms but doent fix the problem itself. The root of energy problem is this- we need a mechanism of extracting work from heat. That's it. Seriously. *ducks*

So you will work better when I put a fire to your backside?

[Banana]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan So you will work better when I put a fire to your backside?

tsk tsk

Stuck in that paradigm- you just lost energy to heat... Get it- we need to *use* heat!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan We also need the ability to ship it to where we need it safely, this is a huge challenge.

Nope. Solved problem in the electrical infrastructure. Store it as hydrogen on the receiving end. Want to send it somewhere else? Convert to electricity in a fuel cell, and transmit. When it gets to the other end, store again.

There's a loss in each conversion, but as those losses drop, it only becomes more and more obvious that the key is just to plan ahead a bit and only convert when necessary.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan [...] I hope to see the day when every house has Solar power for heating, cooling, electricity, and for producing hydrogen for filling up our cars at home and for the rainy days when the sun don't shine. I am not sure how efficient Solar Cells have to be to make this possible, but I hope it is in my life time. The utilities would have to change, maybe the natural gas/heating oil/propane companies would turn more service oriented and you would pay them monthly to maintain the hydrogen production end of your home. The electric companies could maintain the solar electric equipment portion of the deal. All the equipment could be monitored remotely and these service companies would know you need a fix sometimes before you do. Now all of this might work well outside of densely populated area's (big cities), and some creative thinking would be required to make it work in these other area's. [...]

See! We were not disagreeing. Actually, as it turns out, your idea is almost exactly the same as mine. And as Kickaha points out, there are – or likely soon will be –technological solutions to some of the storage/transfer challenges. There is still some work to be done on reducing the cost and ponderousness of solar panels, and increasing their efficiency in generating power from the sun’s energy. However, coupled with energy storage capabilities, solar already is a fall-back (albeit still expensive) option that could supply vast amounts of power. I read recently that if half the rooftops in the U.S. were equipped with solar panels, that could produce 100% of electrical energy needed by the country. As efficiency increases and cost decreases, it will not just be a fall-back power source, but a main power source.

[kscherer]

Now that we have all solved the problem of endless, cheap energy, how do you suppose we get it implemented?

The big energy companies are NEVER going to let go of their stanglehold on the energy business and the politicians make way too much money off of them to ever pass legislation forcing the issue.

Thus, we are in a bit of a pickle. The technology exists, but how do you MAKE it happen, without resorting to socialist tactics?

[Kickaha]

The current energy supplies are limited, therefore subject to market forces. Look at the recent spike in gas prices - they pushed the price down here up and over the price for biodiesel. For a brief point in time, a number of diesel auto owners I know were contemplating moving to the bio form all on their own.

When current energy sources get more expensive, those same energy companies will be looking at alternatives. You think the oil companies don't realize that they're sitting on one of the largest stores of efficiently extractable hydrogen? (Easier than water in some cases.) They're willing to move to hydrogen, they just want to make sure they still control the infrastructure. Once that migration takes place, and they've made the move from energy source to energy infrastructure, other forms of energy production will be more viable.

The question is basically - how expensive will it get before they make the shift?

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Kickaha The current energy supplies are limited, therefore subject to market forces. Look at the recent spike in gas prices - ...

I don't believe that for one second.

Some years ago, when there was another typical news story about problems in the Middle East (this instance was something to do with Iraq and nuclear weapons), gas prices at the local stations jumped up about 25 cents -- OVERNIGHT. Nobody can make me believe that suddenly it cost that much more for an Amoco in Cornhole, Nebraska, to get its gasoline.

And, there's no way that it costs more to supply a gas station right by the interstate than it does to supply one in the middle of town. Yet, you'll always find that gas is more expensive right next to an interstate highway.

People want to treat gasoline like a utility, but the gas companies -- and station owners -- want to squeeze as much profit as they can get away with.

[Kickaha]

Um, duh? I wasn't talking about the short-term one-week bumps, I'm talking about decade-long trends.

You missed the point, utterly. Gas prices *will* rise. It *is* a finite resource. At some point it *will* become more economical to go with other sources. That's the point at which we'll see other sources come to the fore.

Unless you're going to argue that on the one hand they're going to jack up prices as much as possible (which is called a free market - you charge what the market will bear), and on the other hand, they're going to suppress prices to keep it cheap enough to force us all to continue using it, including past the point where they're losing money because of the high extraction costs. Pick one, you can't have it both ways.

And yes, gas is more expensive next to an interstate because it's more needed there. People are in a hurry, they're willing to pay a few cents more to not have to drive a few miles at 35mph and back. Again, supply, demand, market forces.

You're right, in that some people want to treat gas like an over-regulated utility, but it's really not. Never has been. Those who want a endless supply of cheap gas are just deluding themselves.