Alternative Energy

[Beriallord]

There was a workable design for a hydrogen powered car, however some oil company bought it, patented what they could, and shelved it permanently.

 

Corporation has been doing stuff like that for decades.

[Vagrant0]

Seems to me that the Earth has a very good, virtually limitless, and cheap resource they could use for energy... People. Either hook them up to generators, tap into their bio-electrics, or burn them as they are. Makes the most sense since the countries with the highest energy demands are the ones with the most idle population. Two birds with one stone. Well, except for the serious moral and social implications of not only killing/using people, but also in using the energy derived from people. But atleast the ecological groups are happy and it's within our current technological capabilities. Well, not really practical either since certain animals would operate at higher outputs without so many cognitive issues related to being used as power... But then you'd have animal rights groups all up in arms. People being chained to treadmills to generate power, compensated for with daily wages = fine. Animals being chained to treadmills to generate power, compensated for with food and shelter = inhumane practices... go figure.

 

In serious reply. The best solution lies in both. Green power for those areas where it is practical and stable, other power for everything else.

[marharth]

Why does no one seem to care about geothermal energy?

[Beriallord]

This is an interesting article I found related to Cold Fusion. Someone is claiming to have got a working machine.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/italian-cold-fusion-machine-passes-another-test-170606262.html

 

Cold Fusion is controversial within the scientific community, because many believe its impossible in physics to have room temperature fusion.

 

If cold fusion was possible it would be the single answer to all the world's energy problems. I believe in the next 50 years, there is going to be some headway made in Hot fusion, which has much greater potential to produce energy, seeing how 100% of matter is converted into energy. If one could use the most common elements in the universe to produce massive amounts of energy, Hydrogen and Helium, that would be the ultimate solution.

 

 

Why does no one seem to care about geothermal energy?

 

I hear that is very, very costly to get started, and the amount of energy to cost ratio is really terrible. If your house was powered on geothermal, your electric bill would be several times more than what it would cost if that power was generated by burning coal. Very few people want to pay extra for green energy. Geothermal would be easier in a volcanically active area, example if someone could tap into Yellowstone.

 

The comment I underlined is very important, and is at the entire heart of the problem with green energy, its simply not as cost effective as burning coal, or nuclear. If it was cost effective, then nobody would be against it. Would anyone here actually pay 100-200% more for electricity just because it was generated from a windmill or solar? That means it would cost me around 350-$400/month just to heat my house during the winter, and close to that amount just to keep my house cool in the summer.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Beriallord

[lukertin]

There was a workable design for a hydrogen powered car, however some oil company bought it, patented what they could, and shelved it permanently.

Everything in this post makes no logical sense. Even if taken as truth, so what? Who cares?

 

If cold fusion was possible it would be the single answer to all the world's energy problems. I believe in the next 50 years, there is going to be some headway made in Hot fusion, which has much greater potential to produce energy, seeing how 100% of matter is converted into energy. If one could use the most common elements in the universe to produce massive amounts of energy, Hydrogen and Helium, that would be the ultimate solution.

That is hardly the ultimate solution seeing as to how we currently lack the technology to farm Jupiter, or even the Moon, for hydrogen.

Edited December 6, 2011 by lukertin

[Beriallord]

 

That is hardly the ultimate solution seeing as to how we currently lack the technology to farm Jupiter, or even the Moon, for hydrogen.

 

There is no shortage of Hydrogen on Earth. They can create it from water.

[lukertin]

 

That is hardly the ultimate solution seeing as to how we currently lack the technology to farm Jupiter, or even the Moon, for hydrogen.

 

There is no shortage of Hydrogen on Earth. They can create it from water.

 

OK, I did some quick math for you.

 

Energy cost for removing 2 hydrogen from a water molecule:

 

It takes 493.4 kJ/mol to cleave the first H atom from a water molecule, and

424.4 kJ/mol to cleave the 2nd H atom from a water molecule, so in total,

 

H2O --> 2H. + O. takes 917.8 kJ/mol

 

Because fusion of two protons is basically impossible (nuclear attractive forces cannot overcome electric repulsion), only deuterium and tritium can be used for fusion reactions. On Earth, the occurence of deuterium is is approximately 0.015%, or 150 deuterium isotopes for every 1 million hydrogen atoms. Tritium occurs so infrequently it's irrelevant.

 

This comes out to about taking 152.4 x 10^-14 J for every two fusion-quality hydrogen atoms. This equals 9.5 MeV of energy.

 

The fusion of two such deuterium atoms produces ...

 

(drum roll)

 

7.3 MeV energy

 

In other words, your idea is terrible, because we would be using more energy than we are producing.

Edited December 6, 2011 by lukertin