do you think alternative sources of energy are a bunch of pipe dreams?

Question

1. hydrogen= takes more energy to make it than it provides
2. biodiesel and ethanol= only maybe practicle with a limited use to vehicles fuel not praticle for a source of energy for the worlds needs due to the amount of land it takes to produce, we are already running out of farm land
3. solar power: considering the amount of energy the world needs by the time fossil fuel runs out the planet would have to be covered with solar panels and they are expensive,third world countries could not afford
4. wind power: same as with number 3
5. nuclear: produces highly toxic waste,power plants threaten sourounding areas
6. fission: practicle if proven to work still in progress,iter project

Answer 1

You've more or less got a handle on it, but the biodiesel, ethanol etc are bogus and pipe-dreams.

Hydrogen might someday pan out if they can find a cheap catalyst and then develop the production and distribution channels around geothermal venting systems - like Iceland is doing.

Practically it will probably break down like this. We'll probably go mostly nuclear in the short term in the major metro areas and then use wind or solar to keep outlying areas /states going.

At some point oil's cost vs. wind or solar will become even and then - why import oil and gas when you have large windy plain or open desert like in Kansas or Arizona, and also have relatively low energy intensity/usage.

Eventually I suspect if the Middle East continues to spiral into a religious/political fuzzball, or there is another significant terrorist event some folks will be motivated to get Fusion / ITER funded and online faster than anticipated.

Basically the Middle-East is on borrowed time of about 10-15 years no matter what.

If the worst occurs, you can be sure that the US will vigorously and probably secretly fund another ITER in cooperation with other energy dependent states as well as other energy production programs despite whatever our dear friends in the Middle-East say afterwards.

At this point, from their perspective the Middle East/Israel/Saudi Arabia etc, is seriously screwed and need to get their stuff in gear because they'll be unable to command any attention from the rest of the world or they'll alternatively become even more dangerous to the rest of us when the money stops and we put the first few fusion reactors online, they could resort to state sanctioned "terrorism" until someone forks over "assistance".

Answer 2

I agree with you on the first 4 to some degree. With continued technology, I believe that solar and wind can continue to provide benefits and will expand, but not to the point of replacing a better solution.

With hydrogen, you are just relocating the pollution if you are using oil or gas to burn for electricity to provide the hydrogen.

My main question is concerning nuclear. How can it be considered an alternative source of energy? It is already used for 70% of France's supply, approx 20% of the US supply, so it would not be considered an alternative energy supply.

The question might be, can it be expanded to fill the future needs. It is always mentioned about the radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor, but nuclear power is the only energy source where the cost of the byproducts must be considered in the cost of the product. We just burn all the oil and coal we want and basically, no one cares about the radiation and chemicals released into the air then. Since the waste is contained in relatively small quantities, compared to coal ash and the other byproducts of fossil generation, I think power generators will do a better job handling nuclear waste than they presently do in reducing emissions.

Then, if you have non-polluting nuclear power you can then perhaps make hydrogen for transportation needs to reduce emissions from vehicles.

Answer 3

1. Of course hydrogen requires more energy to produce than it provides. Hydrogen is intended as a carrier of energy, not a producer of energy.

2. Ethanol: I am more or less in agreement with you.

3. Solar power: Solar panels don't have to all be photo-voltaic. And they actually produce a surprising amount of power. 3rd world can't afford, true, but they won't be able to afford gasoline either as oil dries up.

4. Wind power is actually very inexpensive and promising. In fact this message is being delivered to you via wind power. My home is powered by wind turbines.

5. Nuclear may produce highly toxic waste, but it is containable.

6. Fission: You probably meant fusion. Now this is probably a pipe dream, at least for our lifetime. Hopefully I'm wrong.

In the future as oil dries up, we will switch to nuclear power, and coal.

Answer 4

Alternative energy sources are not a pipe dream, soon they will be an absolute necessity.

If we think the newer technologies will come from companies like Exxon/Mobile - then it is we who are dreaming.

New technologies will be the answer.
With the exception of fusion, the technologies you allude to have pretty much run their course and, as yet, have proven to not be a realistic, viable alternatives to petroleum. What ever new sources are developed, they will have to be phased in slowly as we and our machinery, as well as our whole economic infrastructure, is all developed for oil consumption.

The vast supplies and relatively low price of oil has historically been such that new research and development was always on the back burner - that simply isn't true any longer.

Answer 5

Government cannot provide anything that it doesn't first take away from productive sources. (Private sector) Unfortunately, many alternative energy schemes are: 1. Completely inefficient and not cost-effective on a macro scale. (wind and solar). This is caused by converting large amounts of expensive land into a use that yields little return. 2. Causing more environmental problems such as interrupted migration patterns and desertification. (wind, solar and hydro) 3. Usually only exist because there is government handout offsetting the costs of using more energy to create less energy. (bio-fuel and ethanol) Nuclear energy is possibly the cheapest, cleanest and safest form energy and is rapidly becoming the energy of choice for Europe.

Answer 6

They'd better not be!
This late in the game, only a combination of technologies can possibly pull our fat out of the fire. We ARE running out of fossil fuels. At least the oil and natural gas types. There is one 'pipedream' that could solve all of these problems if we would just give it a chance, but most ppl consider it science fiction. Zero Point energy IS a real possibility. And there are several possible technologies to capture it. All we really need is funding and the opportunity to build them without having them confiscated before we can sell them!

Answer 7

You left off geothermal and tidal, but I get your point.

On the other hand, it often pays in unexpected ways to struggle in an area of concern for the unknown spin offs.

Also, developments in other sciences often find applications in technologies that haven't paid off yet.

Suppose we make a leap on high temperature superconductors. This would have a large impact on energy storage, transport and usage- perhaps making an as yet not viable alternative more attractive.

The only method we know that can work is trying. It's a tough call to make: Who should get the money available? But, in the end, that's all we can do- try.

Answer 8

non-alternative sources are even worse than pipe dreams.. they're on their way out.

of all those methods, nuclear has the most chance of producing enough power to meet our needs in the long term. we are more than capable of dealing with the waste products and running plants properly. even chernobyl only killed ~100 people in total and that was by far the worst possible way a nuclear power plant could have been run.

by contrast, america built the world's largest windfarm and it didn't even cover america's INCREASE in power demand for that year!

all your points are valid pretty much, but 5 can be managed, especially as we have no viable alternatives.

Answer 9

Why do solar panels have to be so expensive? I am sure there is some way to lower the cost.

We need to look at harnessing many different forms on energy to meet our needs, not one as the only answer.

Add to your list hydropower and geothermal.

Answer 10

I am all for alternative fuel. I think most people are just close minded and refuse to change so they look at all the negatives of the new methods.
It's not like the fuel we use now doesn't have any negative aspects...