renewable energy, can it be mass produced?

Question

I keep seeing articles saying we have to go to renewable energy sourses and soon. What options do we have. Hydro power is being used and has nearly reachedits limit. Wind power so far has not proven it's worth. It takes a huge number of wind turbines to even begin to make a dent in consumption of fossil fuels. The same with solar power. It would take a vast amount of solar cell panels just to power one factory. Bio fuels such as Bio diesel and alcohal use up a vast amount of crop land that will soon be needed to feed the growing population. Hydrogen has potential but so far it takes more energy to produce it than the energy it provides. Fusion nucular may be the best answer in the long run if it ever becomes possible to build fusion reactors that donot take outside energy to run them. Fision reactors create a vast amount of dangerous wste that will last far too long. Any one know of any alternative that can bee viable?

Thanks to you all for answering so far. There are ideas there that I have not explored very well so I will get at reading and see how they fit in. I know many things have to be done and I do hope it happens soon. Neucular for the time baing seems the only way out until something better comes along later. Thanks

Answer 1

You're quite right about renewables, they simply aren't an option. See the link below for more details.

However fission is perfectly viable right now. Fission reactors don't create "vast" amounts of dangerous waste, in fact they create far smaller amounts of dangerous waste than any other energy production system. The amount of waste material produced by a fission plant that you wouldn't handle with your bare hands is only a few tonnes over a 30 year lifespan. That isn't a lot.

The real problem is that most people have no idea what radioactivity is or what the real risks are of it. That ignorance is encouraged by groups such as Greenpeace.

The fact is that over its lifespan a nuclear power plant produces far less radioactive material than a coal or solar power plant. Nonetheless people like you think that fission produces "vast" amounts of waste.

Answer 2

Wow! I'm impressed with Your Question, and all of the Answers thus far.We really do need to get away from Petroleum.At this Point it seems that all other forms of Energy require more Energy "In" than what comes "Out". So, We're going to be Stuck with Petrol for some time to come.The Thing I don't understand is the EPA-OBD II Law. In the USA, all Gasoline Vehicles from 1996 to the Present are required by Law to run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel.Any change, even if Fuel Economy is Improved, and Emissions are Lowered will result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection ! My Avatar is a Photo of a Device that I've Constructed that uses Low Pressure Air to safely Convert Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane, 100 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel.Perfected, this Device will enable even the Largest SUV to get 50 + MPG, and Emit 10 X less Polluting Exhaust Emissions.And it's Illegal ! The Vehicle's O2 Sensor won't detect a "Proper" Exhaust Emissions Level, which will result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection ! This is Crazy ! Now, 1996, let's see, what Administration was in Power when this "Brilliant" bit of Legislation was Passed into Law ? I guess that would be "An Inconvenient Truth"? I tried to contact climatecrisis.net for an Answer.No Reply.I'm not the First to figure this out.Far from it ! Go to www.fuelvapors.com and find out what happened to [the late] Tom Ogle. He was offered $25 Million to keep His Fuel Vaporizer Off the Market. He Refused, He's Dead ! Also, Check out http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html How has this been kept so Quiet ? The Profit Motivation behind the OBD II Legislation ! If Renewable Energy is ever Mass Produced, it would most certainly threaten Someone's Profit ! This must change !

Answer 3

Wind power, hydropower, and all those renewable energy ideas, are really obsolete and just plain dumb. Too much time, money and energy is being wasted on lame technology like ethanol, and wind energy. We are much much more technologically advanced than that. Those were good ideas in the '70's, but this is 2006. We have nanobot technology, new kinds of metals, plastics, genetic engineering, supercomputers. The best form of energy is Atomic energy, and we need to build more nuclear power plants. But even that's a thing of the past. We probably already have the technology for cold fusion, and I've seen some demonstrations where you can make hydrogen out of water, and burn that with no harmful emissions. Nicolai Tesla invented a turbine that was highly efficient, but because scientists are so arrogant, and don't believe in creative energy (the energy that God gave us free that's part of creation, which is Atomic energy), and because our economy is so corrupt, nobody wants to develop the technology, or sell it. Probably because there is no money in it. Someone else will come along with a better idea and all those billions you invested are gone with the wind.

Answer 4

First of all, fusion reaction will always need outside energy to run them, and what we are trying to find is a way to stablise the rxn so that the fusion rxn will produce enough energy to offset the activation energy it took in the first place. Note that this is not a renewable energy, as Hydrogen goes into Helium and that's that, unless we split it again which is extremely difficult, considering the relatively small size of He atoms.

Now, renewable energy are always quite low compared to fossil and fission production, but taht was the whole point of them in the first place, to produce mass amounts of energy whilst poluting the planet. Now that the consequence is finally realised, unless another source is located (i.e. Fusion), the energy requirement must DROP. The output cannot rise by much, and the only way the planet can survive is if we all turned our computers off and use less power.

Answer 5

- agree with you on wind: uses up a lot of space, for not much power generation.
- agree with you on ethanol: looks pretty ugly if you take into account the whole production cycle. And works only because the agriculture is heavily subsidised
- agree with you on fuel cell, so far it does not help because you need a lot of power to obtain the hydrogen in the first place
- nuclear fusion still has not been made to work for extended periods of time


disagree on solar: a concept of a tall tower (half a mile) surrounded by a large (couple miles) disc-shaped greenhouse creates air flows and can end up producing a few 100 megawatts, smaller than one thousand for a nuclear power plant, but respectable. One small prototype (tower 150ft high) has operated in Spain for a couple years, and Spain will start building a much larger plant in 2007, total cost EUR 250 million so reasonable. That could be one solution.

Also, on solar, one simple example: putting around 60 sq.ft. of panels with water on a roof covers one third of the hot water needs for a family of four, under the climate of New-York. If such panels were up on most houses and apartment blocks, you'd have mass production of energy. And these things are very cheap, a couple thousand dollars, whereas you'd need a couple tens of thousand of dollars to have enough photovoltaic panels to power your home.

- solar photovoltaic power: current semi-conductor technology is expensive. Latest technology however works a bit like photosynthesis, and can be added to about any glass making it a bit tinted. So the day we are civilised, you could imagine that each window of each house of building is a small solar-powered generator.

- geothermal: still way under-developed, but with the huge heat reserves inside the earth, you can inject cold water and recuperated it hot, and then either heat buildings or homes, or generate electricity. Countries such as China are the most advanced here.

- clearly fossil fuels are not a solution. Estimates are that the total of petroleum plus gas plus coal can maybe power our civilisation for a century, if we're lucky.


- nuclear fission is not that nice, and it clearly is not renewable. But near-term, it is a technology that we master (apart from the management of nuclear waste). A technology that allows powerful plants (1'000 megatts or more). And as for the fuel, there is enough of it to power our civilisation for at least 10 and maybe 100 million years.


Finally, a lot could be done on the consumption side. Energy conservation is pretty much a non-topic in the US, whereas it is a constant preoccupation in Japan or Europe. As a result, the US consumes, per unit of GDP, about twice as much energy as the other Western nations - that should leave some room for improvement.


Hope this helps


a

Answer 6

Dear Ken , Yr Q is a good one & one day it may be great to sit & discuss with you directly . I am from Malaysia & currently we already see Solar is a more viable power source in Asia .
It is true that Solar Panels require space but current Contructions of new Buildings have incorporated Solar Panels in their roofing systems & we are using GHP powered Aircon & Heater Units. The Solar Capacitor Banks are now more receptable to higher capacities of Power STorage & recharging now is more rapid than before. Allow the world another 10 Yrs for them to improve this technology & then we will see significant changes into the ALternative Power Supply Chain . People can't move much now bcos alternative power is very expensive. I can be contacted at [e-mail].
I sincerely believe that Solar Power can & will be mass produced for all in the near future . GO SOLAR.

Answer 7

You have it exactly right. Another responder has advocated nuclear (fission) power, and I agree. There are as yet no reliable demonstrations of cold fusion, and on theoretical grounds I doubt that it is possible. As for wind power, a lot of plant was built on the basis of tax subsidies, but what happens when the subsidies are done? Take a drive down the road to South Point on the big island of Hawaii, and you will see: in this area, with perhaps the highest cost electricity in the US, the wind plant is in disrepair because it is evidently not economic.

Answer 8

I agree with the excellent responses so far that solar is the best source of renewable energy. There are two points to add.
1. Atomic energy is produced with uranium. Like oil, the supply of uranium is large but finite. This would become evident if the nuclear industry were to expand severalfold.
2. The efficiency of solar energy can be improved by using solar concentrators.

Answer 9

Our best bet now is to make reasonable, balanced investments in all of them, including conservation. Why is it legal to use anything but solar to heat water or pools in Phoenix? Solar heating or preheating of domestic water is practical in much of the world. It does require higher initial investment and higher maintenance. Photovoltaic panels are seeing dramatic improvements, as are electronic power conversion tools. They avoid power transmission losses by generating power at the point of use. They are reliable since they are massively parallel. They are beginning to be manufactured in the form factor of roofing tiles. There's plenty of roof space available.

See http://www.magnegas.com/ for a technology which produces extremely clean energy while consuming nearly any organic waste material.

I still think nuclear fission is a good bet, if we'd invest in some fast breeder reactors to manage the spent fuel.

We have good choices if we'll use them.

Answer 10

renewable energy like wind and water power take a lot to do the work of coal plant depending on where they are located. nuclear plants do the work well, but have toxic byproducts that have long halflifes.

solar power has a chance of doing useful things. it's bein used in road signs in IL now. and they're saving some money.