The most efficient (and secure) system is a thermal combinated cycle. Gas turbines with steam engines. However, pollution is a problem.
Nuclear plants are incredible. But they've got a security problem. We've learn with Chernobyl.
Solar (PV and thermal), eolic and other alternative systems are green, but powerless and expensive.
None of the systems is perfect, a combination of them is the best choice.
2007-01-31 07:26:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Alfred 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Meeting a growing demand.....
1. Decrease demand
2. Increase capacity
1. You say growing population and developing industries.
First stop or retard the growing population. You think this a a political issue, but all engineering solves human problems. Contraception and family planing go a long way in helping society problems. This may be contra to developing industries, if they are sweatshops using mass amonts of cheap labor. But if the population decreases, the politicians need less industries to keep the population employed, and out of trouble.
Power hungry automated heavy industries don't employ as much volume, so developing the power to enable them may be conterproductive. Only a few will have jobs.
Getting power to a growing population is a problem, because transmission and distribution to housing is the most expensive-least return part of the distribution system.
I'd develop small packages able to be installed in each home, where the user can generate his own, like a pedal generator. The kids would have to take turns pedaling, while mom and dad watch, "3rd Word Idol". Some sort of battery storage and DC apliances. When the power is low, have one of the kids get back on and pedal.
I've seen 3rd world contries, where they stil go to the store for meat, vegetables, and bread, and the small electric line to the house powers the light and TV at night. They put the TV ahead of a regrigerator, or stove.
As far as inner city power, those systems have been developed and refined so much, its a mature technology. There's just not much engineering innovation. All the developement that makes great gains has been done. All incremental improvements are more costly now.
2007-01-31 17:36:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by mt_hopper 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depending on the neighboring nations, the path is not necessarily simple.
On the one hand: buy power from the neighbors (at whatever they charge, but look at it being a bulk discount and a short-term solution) ... Argue for some discount, because your 'developing nation' must have SOMETHING the other guy wants! At the same time, push your industrial base toward both nuclear and 'green' solutions to limit the environmental impact. This means investing in wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal prospects. (Nuclear is also a temporary stopgap, a way of getting out from under the neighbors quickly).
If the neighbors aren't any better off in terms of power, then still focus on the 'green' side for generation, but put up a few fossil-fuel plants (the choice of fuels is dependent primarily on naitve resources) to give you a starting point. Transition to nuclear (from fossil fuel) at the earliest opportunity.
When pursuing 'green' technologies, it isn't enough to simply put up the power plants. Also build the infrastructure to replace/rebuild similar structures on your own.
2007-01-31 16:24:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by CanTexan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the best way to create electricity in a growing population is, taking what they don t want and give them what they want...they don t want waist materials, and they want energy in a form of electricity, Efficiency Analysts Group (EAG) Inc, is working on a device which transforms waisted materials such as comestibles , plastics, used tires, used paper, and more into usable electricity, so to answer your question, the technology is under study, we ve designed over 30 prototypes, and the principle by function is tested and marketable, and the byproduct is non pollutant, and the fabrication cost of the transformation plant is negligible.
2007-01-31 15:51:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dan D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fuel cells is the most efficient to date and motion-less device, but it is steal conceder experimental, therefore expensive to build.
2007-02-04 14:05:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by StanleyB51 4
·
0⤊
0⤋