The energy source of the future?

What energy source will be the new 'oil' of the future?

Post 1

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 11:23am

Depends on how far into the future you want to go...

It might surprise some, but the idea of utilizing static electricity is not as nebulous as is usually given....

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/31, 11:24am)

Post 2

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 11:42am

I imagine more breakthroughs in converting matter to electromagnetic and kinetic energy. One potential process may be with the applications that entail from the existence of hydrinos (If they do exist).

Also, new materials and manufacturing technology may enable new ways to store energy at higher densities and harvest the stored energy more efficiently. So we could have our modern nuclear fission facilities generate tons of clean power at one location, and then store it and use it all over the place.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 12/31, 12:15pm)

Post 3

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:10pm

Erik, are you asking for investment advice?

Post 4

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:24pm

Ah, the answer is "the Brain Power" - From "The Universe of Energy" at Epcot center, Disney World. :-)

Post 5

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:37pm

The acceptance of rational selfishness, rejection of altruism->(slavery), promotion of individualism: Capitalism

Space ship one rocketing to space

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 12/31, 12:49pm)

Post 6

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 1:05pm

Ahah - so, someone else has been to Ecot...

Post 7

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 1:18am

Initially there will be a move back to coal and nuclear. If we can get coal generators in each suburb or even in large buildings we will be saving a great deal of money and resources. Since attempting to send energy long distances through wires is terribly wasteful.

Post 8

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 2:15pm

Nuclear for the short-term (Although how you define short term is difficult within itself). Other fuels won't be nearly efficient or widely usable for the next 50 years or so. I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but it's not as if the energy market is open to private competitors at the moment.

What Objectivists have to remember is, if tree-huggin hippies hate it, we should love it. They seek nothing but the destruction of people and civilised life, where we seek to make civilised life universally available to those who take it. The Greens hate nuclear energy, Objectivists should love it.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

Andy.

Post 9

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 8:32pm

I've really been pondering this for awhile, which is the reason I posted the question. Naturally, in a laissez-faire market economy the flow of dollars viz. supply and demand would determine which energy would be dominate. However, in terms of efficiency so far nuclear power wins hands down. Through innovation nuclear power can, and hopefully will if the gents in Washington see the light of reason, become more and more technologically advanced (which also means safer). Currently about 77% of Frances energy is nuclear, the US is at about 20%. Ouch! If nuclear power were to make a re-appearence onto the global energy scene, then as a secondary effect you would most likely have a cascade of new and innovative evergy technology for mobile vehicles, i.e. cars, which fuels would be a lot cleaner when used as well as being better with gas mileage, etc. The biggest obstacle of course; statism.

Post 10

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:22am

And worse than the state, is the hysteria over the supposed 'waste', the seeking to encapsule it into some thousands of years crypt - as if were never to be of use..... within a mere hundred or less, methinks, there'll be found use for the 'spent', let alone on the order of thousands.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 3/20, 5:23am)

Waste is merely saying it has no present usefulness.... else it is a meaninglessness....

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/20, 5:25am)

Post 11

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:19am

Erik Christian Christensen said:

"Currently about 77% of France's energy is nuclear, the US is at about 20%."

That's fine for stationary applications, but the real problem is in transportation. The current global economy is based in transportation plus information & communication technologies, and the largest share of energy consumption is obviously placed in the former one, transportation.

Looking for alternatives to oil in transportation,

1) Electricity can be massively produced with nuke plants, but electric batteries are not competitive, yet --too low energy storage density, specially compared to the large energy density that made liquid refined fossil fuels so convenient for transportation.

2) The same can be said about hydrogen, with the added hurdle that an economically sound (large-scale) hydrogen production method is still not available: the current production methods are at small scale and far below any possibility of competition with the oil products.

3) Liquid fuels (ethanol, methanol) produced from vegetables (sugar, soy bean, etc.) would require huge cultivated areas.

Overall, I see that America and the civilized world have two strategic options:

A) Develop an American Energy "Marshal Plan" for the development of alternative energy sources that make of oil an obsolete energy source. Stablish ties with researchers in Australia, Japan, India, UK, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and maybe a handful of allied countries more.

B) Invade Saudi Arabia, expel the Wahhabis, and take control of the oil wells (defending them armed with an AMD system, if required).

In the meantime we decide among A, B, or A+B, instead of sitting on our hands, we must defend our countries with:

1) Tough immigration policies, very specially from Islamic countries.

2) Proceeding with preemptive, surgical strikes against rogue regimes and other regional and local terrorist hotbeds [*].

3) Help the Iranian dissidents in the destruction of the Islamic regime. Stop all "financial help" to our "allies" Egypt, Pakistan, and all other tyrannical regimes in the world, specially the Islamic ones.

4) Enjoy, celebrate & spread the values of Civilization; by all technical & humane means available, all over the world.

*: The dictator Hussein rewarded and gave sanctuary to Islamic terrorists; additionally, according to information seized by the US Army in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein did have WMD --nuclear weapons included; probably, they were in part dismantled --with Russian help--, in part moved to Syria and the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon.)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/20, 10:37am)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/21, 2:34am)

Post 12

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:10pm

Well even if we end up moving away from drilled oil and burning it, some sort of liquid fuel is necessary for our vehicles, unless some compact power energy generator and fuel is developed such as Nuclear Isomer energy storage ( http://www.matus1976.com/features/isomer.htm ) because petrol beats *everything* for energy storage density hands down. Gasoline holds about 13,000 watt/hours per kilogram, while the best batteries hold about 300. Although I have read claims from companies that suggest magnetically levitated flywheels might exceed the energy storage desntiy of gasoline, I am still skeptical of them.

Michael F Dickey

Post 13

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 7:23am

Joel, Michael, Andrew, Erik,

Great points all.

Until some really breakthrough technology is developed, we are indeed stuck with liquid fuels for transportation. Conversely, it is ridiculous to waste liquid fuels for generation of electricity to supply the grid when nuclear (á la France) and coal are readily available.

Graeme,

The generation of power from coal in large, centralized plants outside population centers and its subsequent transmission over long distances has four advantages:

i.) There are greater efficiency and substantial economies of scale to be obtained in power generation alone by using a larger, versus smaller, plant.

ii.) Once the electricity is generated, the exhaust from the furnace must be disposed of. Before discharging it to the atmosphere, it is currently run through several stages of purification to eliminate most of the pollutants in it (especially particulates.) There are enormous economies of scale to be obtained in this cleanup effort by using a larger plant.

iii.) By transporting the electricity a long distance over wires, we may place the furnace outside the air basin of any population center. This way, the pollution that remains after the purification mentioned above will not be additive with the pollution emanating from the vehicles in the population center. Bottom line: cleaner air in cities.

iv.) By placing the plant far from cities, we may also place it closer to the coal mine, leading to a shorter rail link or fluidized bed pipeline. Bottom line: it is cheaper and more efficient to transmit the electricity over long distances than to move the coal that produces it.

(Of course, with a nuclear plant, reasons ii., iii., and iv. go away. But reason i. is stronger.)

The power grid uses very high voltages for long-distance transmission. Since power transmitted equals voltage times current, but resistive loss is proportional only to current, the losses are thereby kept to a minimum.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 3/26, 7:25am)

Post 14

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 8:07am

Erik: "What energy source will be the new 'oil' of the future?"

My answer to this question is: 'new oil' (that is, oil obtained using new technologies.)

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

http://www.house.gov/cannon/wc/press/2005/News_articles/oilshale/gray_shale.pdf

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20060312/VALLEYNEWS/103120005

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15976

-Bill

Post 15

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:42am

Fusion all the way, baby! Oh, btw, fast neutron fission reactors are 96% efficient, so only a fraction of the radioactive waste is produced. And you get the most bang for the buck. Wait for companies to break ground on more of these babies when the energy prices vs investment costs maximize the profit of such a venture.

-- Bridget

Post 16

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:10am

Today, controlled fusion is the pie in the sky solution. Maybe in forty or fifty years it will be possible to perform.

The fact is: we need alternatives as soon as possible.

Post 17

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:04pm