[Twitchiopolis]

Since there is no SCIENCE! subforum, I figured tech would be the best spot to post this.

Recently in the Bad Day Thread over in Anything and Everything the topic came up of energy resources. Not wanting to pirate the thread, I figured I'd make a new one to discuss this topic.

While the disadvantages and drawbacks of fossil fuels are obvious, what isn't is what would be a suitable replacement for them. The issue is that every "green" energy source has its drawbacks. This site covers the majority of them, but I will summarize and expand on a few here.

Wind- Seems like a good option, right? The obvious issue is that it requires a large amount of constant wind to opperate. The not so obvious issues include the environmentally taxing process of manufacturing, constructing, and maintaining wind farms, the disruption of bird migration paths caused by wind farms, their impact on bats, and their impact on local weather.

Hydroelectricity- Hydraulic energy requires the damming of a river. This in turn causes a resevoir to form, the source of the water that spins the turbines of the dam. The formation of this resevoir can displace people and wildlife as well as be potentially hazardous to the surrounding geology. Not only that, but it is only a temporary solution. The average dam has a life of fifty years. Over that time, the sedimentation build up behind the dam steadily decreases it's effectiveness. The trapping of sediment also has impacts downstream, where it normally would nourish the adjacent landscapes.

Solar Power- Solar power is the ideal green energy, as much of the energy that hits the surface of the earth is reflected back into space. The problems are that it's not well enough developed and that even once it is developed, it is unlikely to meet all of our energy needs on its own. At the very least, solar paint holds potential for reducing our electrical needs

Tidal Energy- A great deal of energy can be found in the shifting of water due to tides. The problem is harnessing that energy. Two models have been proposed. One functions very much like a two way hydroelectric dam, and has many of the same flaws of the dam and some unique to itself. Another module involved a moving barge on a rail system, but was too impractical for actual use due to the inequalities of ebb and flood tides.

Geothermal Power- Geotheremal energy is costly to start, but lacks a fuel cost. The issues surrounding it involve location and biproduct. Only limited sites meet the requirements to generate appricable geothermal energy. These sites are typically located in techtonically active areas, and under some conditions the hydraulic fracturing process used to create a geothermal power plant can activate/reactivate faults. Geothermal fluids can be a major hazard if they leak into groudwater resources. Geothermal reactors produce some amount of greenhouse gasses, thought not as much as fossil fuel plants (which are in turn outshined by natural volcanism. Geothermal plant<Coal plant<<<Volcano). The emmisions from geothermal plants are also significantly heated, altering local weather.

Nuclear Power- Nuclear power has the benefit of relativly clean discharges and massive energy potential. The obvious side effects involve radioactivity, the very property exploited to produce electricty. Radioactive waste is a hazardous substance and needs to be properly stored, or it may contaminate groundwater supplies and surface environments. Another downside is process of mining for uranium, which can be environmentally intensive in itself.

Fossil Fuels- Fossil fuels are by no means perfect, but they're what we have for now. We can't instantly expand into alternative fuels sources, so in the meantime we're stuck with them.

[smarmyprince]

I agree that we need some sort of sciencey area.

A few more ideas:

Fusion: Obviously, we're a ways away from being able to usefully perform this, but would be very useful if we could harness this.

Chemical: How fossil fuels work--apply a small amount of energy to release more energy. You break the bonds between hydrocarbons to form simpler constituents. We'd need to find ample, renewable chemicals that produces comparable amounts of energy. Anyone who remembers high school chemistry knows that mixing an acid with a base releases heat, but not in (relatively) appreciable amounts.

Biochemical: Certain bacteria naturally produce electricity, which may help create natural batteries.

Lightning: Because this would be hella cool. The only problem is getting the energy and storing it without destroying the equipment. Lightning is very powerful.

[Twisted1616]

I agree that we need some sort of sciencey area.

A few more ideas:

Fusion: Obviously, we're a ways away from being able to usefully perform this, but would be very useful if we could harness this.

Chemical: How fossil fuels work--apply a small amount of energy to release more energy. You break the bonds between hydrocarbons to form simpler constituents. We'd need to find ample, renewable chemicals that produces comparable amounts of energy. Anyone who remembers high school chemistry knows that mixing an acid with a base releases heat, but not in (relatively) appreciable amounts.

Biochemical: Certain bacteria naturally produce electricity, which may help create natural batteries.

Lightning: Because this would be hella cool. The only problem is getting the energy and storing it without destroying the equipment. Lightning is very powerful.

I had the impression he wanted to talk about viable possibilities of alternate energy sources. Things ready now, or very close. :/

But if not..... Dyson Sphere.

[smarmyprince]

I had the impression he wanted to talk about viable possibilities of alternate energy sources. Things ready now, or very close. :/

Bio/chemical are viable areas. Their only problem is finding the resources to get a reasonable gain from reasonable expense. Of course, it's never just as simple as getting lots of free energy. The implications of the second law of thermodynamics makes finding the right materials very difficult.

For lightning and fusion, I apologize for being off topic.

A while ago, I was actually gunning for a research internship that focused on something similar. The point was artificially replicating the process of photosynthesis in order to improve the efficacy of solar panels. Supposedly, the figures were something like we're only getting 30% efficiency and this process could bump it up to 50 or 60% (I'm not positive of these figures).

But if not..... Dyson Sphere.

This will have the same problems as normal solar panels, except we'll also have to worry about positioning and maintenance in space. Maybe a higher output of energy due to the lack of atmosphere, but the problems of being in space is much more important than a little more collection potential.

This post has been edited by smarmyprince: 23 July 2009 - 12:34 AM

[Cybercat]

Wind- Seems like a good option, right? The obvious issue is that it requires a large amount of constant wind to opperate. The not so obvious issues include the environmentally taxing process of manufacturing, constructing, and maintaining wind farms, the disruption of bird migration paths caused by wind farms, their impact on bats, and their impact on local weather.

Not to mention the ruined view and sound issues for people living nearby. Apparently the turning blades can make quite a bit of noise.

[Chaotisynthetix]

Wind- Seems like a good option, right? The obvious issue is that it requires a large amount of constant wind to opperate. The not so obvious issues include the environmentally taxing process of manufacturing, constructing, and maintaining wind farms, the disruption of bird migration paths caused by wind farms, their impact on bats, and their impact on local weather.

Not to mention the ruined view and sound issues for people living nearby. Apparently the turning blades can make quite a bit of noise.

It also takes up a large amount of real estate and they require a lot of maintanence. Wind truly is the worst possible option.

IMO, Solar and Nuclear are the best. Solar has improved a lot, it has a lot to go, but individual houses can be powered entirely on solar now without a lot of effort. So that takes care of residential.

Nuclear power Is no where near as dangerous as people are afraid of. Everyone remembers three mile island and chernobyl but they forget that France is almost entirely, if not completely nuclear power. and they have so much extra they sell quite a bit of it to neighboring countires. Much of eruope and the east coast of the US is nuclear power. Nuclear power plants do not take up a lot of space, and the power provided by "breeder" Nuclear power plants is the closest thing to perpetual motion man has been able to accomplish.

They are also not that hard to take care of, people need to just be serious. Nuclear failure is caused by gross negilgence and incompetence. As long as the correct safety measures are taken and enforced, its safe.

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that they take a long time to build. Its not like propping up a Kmart. I've heard the time period of 10 years but I dont know how accurate that is, and how much time of that is dedicated to permits and legal red tape.


I also think that Energy should be able to be a private commodity. If I can grow and sell turnips in my backyard, why can I not make extra solar energy and sell it to my neighbors?

[dlhappy]

Well how much noise do the wind farms really do, I mean, could we just put them up on top of buildings? No real estate problem and easy access for repairs ... weather wise it didn't seam that big a deal to me, and there are few birds who migrate that high, and over cities.

Sorry about the run on, it's late and I don't feel like correcting it.

[Twitchiopolis]

They are quite noisy. Trust me on that one.

Multipul problems with putting windmills on buildings. The biggest one; commercial wind turbines are HUGE! It's hard to tell in most images of them, because little is there to use for scale. Note the size of the road and trees in this photo compared to the turbines. Wind farms can't be placed in cities. The shear size of the opperations coupled with the noise produced makes that entirely impractical. The places they can be positioned, windswept ridgelines, are prime spots for birds.

Weather alterations are a very important issue in areas where wind farms can be situated, such as central PA. One word; farmers.

Finally, there's the issue that's been fighting the further developement of wind farms in PA; asethics. Central PA is reknown for it's majestic ridges and low valleys. Putting a giant pinwill in the middle of that landscap kinda kills the mood.

[Maelgwyn]

Actually, JAX suggested Kite power (and I have not got that link) and I think that could be viable - especially in higher density areas.

But Solar, and thats not just *our* Solar, is possibly the better option, especially where I live since its always so hot and stupidly sunny. But people and government and private enterprise need to get serious to sort out the cost and the accessability of it.

[Aevum]

hmm...

the efficiency of solar power could be increased in massive ammounts if the collector were put in orbit insted of on the surface of the planet, the only problem with that is that you need a transport system to "download" the energy back to earth, physical transport of electrical storage or cabling is inpractical, the best next thing would be a sort of pulse or straight laser, the problem is it would ionize the atmosphear, or tesla style low freq radio energy trasmission,

[SaintArthur]

Siemens in coalition have a plan they are researching to build an absolutely huge solar farm in the sahara, sufficient to power all of Europe, Africa and some of western Asia. The biggest problems are political, in that they don't know where they can put it that it won't be taken over, blown up, sabotaged, robbed etc.
In the end people cause all the problems..