The Future of Energy

[Capto]

Where do you think it is? Nuclear, more ridiculously inefficient clean energy, refining current clean energy?

In my opinion, the best way is the development of hydrogen-fuel via an aluminum sodium-hydroxide, which is a cheap and effective way that I recently hypothesized. However, there is the problem of a rather useless by-product.

So discuss. Where should we go once natural fossil fuels run out? Can we synthesize new ones? Can we take a different course?

[Mynick]

Well it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen gas than the energy that is retrieved. Does aluminum sodium-hydroxide produces pure hydrogen?

[Harry Smith]

Hyrogen isn't that good, ye it's easy to extract but not only is it very explosive but it's also very hard to store because it has to be kept in pressurized containers.

For Africa it has to be solar power- massive industrial scale solar panels spreading miles could really benefit them.

For the West it's a blend- Nuclear Power for now- it's very effective and despite popular myths safe if it's managed by scientists not politicians. In coastal areas wind power can be used along with small scale solar power to help on the side.

We need to invest research into nuclear fusion- it's still in the early stages but if it could be mastered we have a super effective way of producing Energy with nearly no by-products

[Capto]

Well it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen gas than the energy that is retrieved. Does aluminum sodium-hydroxide produces pure hydrogen?

Yep.

The thing is, aluminum by itself reacts with water and separates it into hydrogen and oxygen. However, due to the fact that aluminum oxidizes ridiculously quickly, and it consumes energy to deoxidize it, my initial solution was to burn through the AlO coating. As such, the only reason I added the sodium-hydroxide solution in the first place was to break the coating. Nonetheless, the principle is that Al, or even alkaline metals can be used effectively and [in the case of aluminum] cost-effectively to acquire clean energy.

Hyrogen isn't that good, ye it's easy to extract but not only is it very explosive but it's also very hard to store because it has to be kept in pressurized containers.


But it's cheap, and the point is to not store it, as the ease of extraction can be easily waylayed into a hydrogen plant on the same premises. Note that you can mass-produce it with the dissolution method with very little space.

I don't see how it being explosive is a problem. That's the whole point, after all!

[Harry Smith]

But it's cheap, and the point is to not store it, as the ease of extraction can be easily waylayed into a hydrogen plant on the same premises. Note that you can mass-produce it with the dissolution method with very little space.

I don't see how it being explosive is a problem. That's the whole point, after all!

It's so damn volatile, more so than current fuels meaning it's going to be a pain to use. It needs more energy to extract it at the moment than you get from the fuel. It's a nice idea but it's not a replacement for fossil fuels.

[Capto]

It's so damn volatile, more so than current fuels meaning it's going to be a pain to use. It needs more energy to extract it at the moment than you get from the fuel. It's a nice idea but it's not a replacement for fossil fuels.

Volatility is good in this regard. Excellent, even.

And from calculations taken from aluminum extraction and lye production, the energy transfer rate, while not nearly as efficient as fossil fuels, is more efficient than wind or solar energy, IIRC.

You might be right, though. I've been scrambling at such alternatives for about a year now. But I can't give up quite yet. I might dive into the world of nuclear energy though.

[Harry Smith]

Volatility is good in this regard. Excellent, even.

And from calculations taken from aluminum extraction and lye production, the energy transfer rate, while not nearly as efficient as fossil fuels, is more efficient than wind or solar energy, IIRC.

You might be right, though. I've been scrambling at such alternatives for about a year now. But I can't give up quite yet. I might dive into the world of nuclear energy though.

Not if you have it in a car or a bus, boom time!

Due to me spending science perving at my mate I'm wondering if Aluminum extraction is electrolysis?

You should jump on the nuclear bandwagon, just because the Japanese built a reactor on a fault line doesn't mean it's bad

[Capto]

Not if you have it in a car or a bus, boom time!

Due to me spending science perving at my mate I'm wondering if Aluminum extraction is electrolysis?

You should jump on the nuclear bandwagon, just because the Japanese built a reactor on a fault line doesn't mean it's bad

Yeah, I was talking about power utilities as opposed to fueling vehicles. Well looks like I overlooked that massive part, whoops.

Aluminum extraction, I meant in the previous instance as being the energy necessary for the extraction and refinement of aluminum as an essential ingredient for the process.

By the way, the process can be completed with just aluminum foil, lye, and water, ingredients that can be found very commonly and cheaply. :)

The process itself is similar to electrolysis ends-wise, though means-wise it's completely different.

2Al + 3H2O → 3H2 + Al2O3 + heat

Haha yeah, the problem with Japan is that we don't have a single location earthquake-proof. :P

[Human]

More nuclear where it's safe, so don't build them on fault lines...

More wind power, the UK government has to pay wind farms to turn off or they create a surplus.

[Harry Smith]

Yeah, I was talking about power utilities as opposed to fueling vehicles. Well looks like I overlooked that massive part, whoops.

Aluminum extraction, I meant in the previous instance as being the energy necessary for the extraction and refinement of aluminum as an essential ingredient for the process.

By the way, the process can be completed with just aluminum foil, lye, and water, ingredients that can be found very commonly and cheaply. :)

The process itself is similar to electrolysis ends-wise, though means-wise it's completely different.

2Al + 3H2O → 3H2 + Al2O3 + heat

Haha yeah, the problem with Japan is that we don't have a single location earthquake-proof. :P

Ah equations, I had to make sure it was balanced :P Aren't I cool?

That's the problem with it, I mean we have hydrogen buses are here and I'm waiting for someone to blow one up because it will take out half the city.

[Capto]

Yeah, I don't really want to blow up my town with testing hydrogen in vehicles that's for sure. :P

But my method is on a very small direct scale, so it's not as quick, but it's relatively cost and energy efficient.

More nuclear where it's safe, so don't build them on fault lines...


This is where it's tough.


What probability of disaster says safe? In this case, Japan can't get no nuclear power. :(

[britishboy]

Hyrogen isn't that good, ye it's easy to extract but not only is it very explosive but it's also very hard to store because it has to be kept in pressurized containers.

For Africa it has to be solar power- massive industrial scale solar panels spreading miles could really benefit them.

For the West it's a blend- Nuclear Power for now- it's very effective and despite popular myths safe if it's managed by scientists not politicians. In coastal areas wind power can be used along with small scale solar power to help on the side.

We need to invest research into nuclear fusion- it's still in the early stages but if it could be mastered we have a super effective way of producing Energy with nearly no by-products

I agree with all this accsept from Range Rovers dont have a hybrid and wind farms are ugly

[Harry Smith]

I agree with all this accsept from Range Rovers dont have a hybrid and wind farms are ugly

Range Rovers are ineffective as it is, you might as well buy your own oil field to maintain it. David Cameron is ugly, he's still here. A power station doesn't look much nicer than a turbine- if the best argument against it is it's appearance you know it must be good

[britishboy]

Range Rovers are ineffective as it is, you might as well buy your own oil field to maintain it. David Cameron is ugly, he's still here. A power station doesn't look much nicer than a turbine- if the best argument against it is it's appearance you know it must be good

Cameron is the best looking of the lot:D to be honest I'm don't know too much about them, but theyre expensive, ruin views and lower house prices and maintenance? is that an issue?

oh and Range Rovers aren't the evil hippies in Greenpeace make them out to be, theyre beautiful cars and with all the regulation now, we're lucky petrol is even allowed!

[Harry Smith]

Cameron is the best looking of the lot:D to be honest I'm don't know too much about them, but theyre expensive, ruin views and lower house prices and maintenance? is that an issue?

oh and Range Rovers aren't the evil hippies in Greenpeace make them out to be, theyre beautiful cars and with all the regulation now, we're lucky petrol is even allowed!

If you want a beautifal car get an Aston Martin- not a drug dealing 4x4. All fuel sources are expensive but they have no extraction costs- they run off nature where as fuel stations require constant electricity and funding.

I don't think their ugly, I don't care if people think they are. The majority of them should be placed in the Sea.

[Capto]

Cameron is the best looking of the lot:D

http://topnews.in/files/Vladimir-Putin_4.jpg

Pardon?

Hmm.

I like the idea of placing large solar panels in otherwise useless plots of desert. :)

[britishboy]

If you want a beautifal car get an Aston Martin- not a drug dealing 4x4. All fuel sources are expensive but they have no extraction costs- they run off nature where as fuel stations require constant electricity and funding.

I don't think their ugly, I don't care if people think they are. The majority of them should be placed in the Sea.
I LOVE Aston Martins! so swarve so British! all custom hand made! shame theyre not actually British but you still get the feel of British quality! my favorite is the V8 vantage, the V12 is ugly, they cut holes in the bonet and made it too 'look at me'

true, actually probably cheaper and I agree, far at sea
image (http://topnews.in/files/Vladimir-Putin_4.jpg)

Pardon?

Hmm.

I like the idea of placing large solar panels in otherwise useless plots of desert. :)

lets not debate best looking leaders:P some like em posh (Mr Cameron) some like ex KGB (Mr Putin) :p

yeah so do I but nuclear power stations are more efficient

[Capto]

yeah so do I but nuclear power stations are more efficient

But the point is there's not much we can do with the Kalahari and the Sahara but solar. I mean, who wants to sit in the south of Algeria for no reason but a decent [perhaps] pay to look over a nuclear plant?

[britishboy]

But the point is there's not much we can do with the Kalahari and the Sahara but solar. I mean, who wants to sit in the south of Algeria for no reason but a decent [perhaps] pay to look over a nuclear plant?

that is true

[Southside]

Wind power in costal areas

Solar power in the desert or places that get a lot of sun

Geothermal in places that have volcanic activity.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt the US have a ton of natural gas sitting out West somewhere? Natural gas is cleaner than coal and oil so I think we should try to start making natural gas vehicles more accessible to the general public.

I guess nuclear power everywhere else? We need to figure out what we are going to do with the spent fuel rods though, you cant bury them underground forever.

[Human]

Yeah, I don't really want to blow up my town with testing hydrogen in vehicles that's for sure. :P

But my method is on a very small direct scale, so it's not as quick, but it's relatively cost and energy efficient.



This is where it's tough.


What probability of disaster says safe? In this case, Japan can't get no nuclear power. :(

When you consider a lot of factors, it was a bad idea building the Fukushima nuclear reactor where it was. There were other factors in the disasters too - for example a faulty cooling system, falsified safety records and it was also submitted to a panel where they assessed whether it would withstand against an earthquake... they said it would be safe. In England where there are very little natural disasters apart from floods in certain areas, there have been hardly any nuclear disasters in modern times.

So yeah, we just need more stringent examinations for nuclear sites safety :P

[sqishy]

Assuming we manage to harness energy as a resource so well that we turn into an interstellar immortal race and roam the galaxy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes all energy in the universe become uniformly distributed and heat death occurs in no later than 10^10^120 years. Also assuming we somehow survive this universal fuckup by slowing our energy usage rate with cryogenics/something-like-that so that there's still always more energy left in the dark era universe, we might last until then. And no longer. And SILENCE WILL FALL.

Yes, I may be pessimistic and off-topic here, but just so you know ^.^

[tovaris]

Hydrogen now that is something... great for cars.
Bit for electricity solar and wind is best.

[Gigablue]

The thing is, aluminum by itself reacts with water and separates it into hydrogen and oxygen. However, due to the fact that aluminum oxidizes ridiculously quickly, and it consumes energy to deoxidize it, my initial solution was to burn through the AlO coating. As such, the only reason I added the sodium-hydroxide solution in the first place was to break the coating. Nonetheless, the principle is that Al, or even alkaline metals can be used effectively and [in the case of aluminum] cost-effectively to acquire clean energy.

Where do you get the aluminum. It doesn't occur on its own, so you would have to refine it, a process which needs a massive amount of energy.

2Al + 3H2O → 3H2 + Al2O3 + heat

What of you do with the AL2O3. To turn it back into AL would use more energy than you would get from the hydrogen. If you just leave it, you then need to refine more aluminum, which uses even more energy.

The problem is that you can't make energy by separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burning them back together. Whether you separate them via electrolysis, using a metal, or by some other means, you will not get energy. You can't even keep the same amount. The second law to thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system always increases. If you try to split and recombine water, the entropy of the system increases, and the amount of free energy decreases.

As for the issue with energy, I think nuclear is the way to go. The yield is huge, and it takes up little space. There is the issue of waste, but we are now able to build later generations of reactor that use the waste as fuel.

We should invest in thorium based reactors as well, since they are superior to uranium based reactors in many ways. They don't melt down, they don't produce as much waste, their waste cannot be used to make weapons, and thorium is more abundant that uranium.

That being said, our energy needs will continue to increase, and will eventually exceed the capacity of our reactors. We should try to develop fusion based reactors as soon as possible. They can produce a staggering amount of energy, more than enough to sustain us for a very long time. We still have a lot of challenges if we want to build one, but it will be possible in the future.

We also need to invest in things like wind, geothermal and solar, but not to the same extent. They don't have the yield of nuclear, so they aren't a permanent solution. That being said, they can help us reduce our dependency on fossil fuels until our nuclear power technology is sufficiently developed.

[Walter Powers]

I think the government should stay out of this. We don't need subsidies to determine which forms of energy are best. We should let the market do it's job, and let the most efficient means succeed. The miracle of freedom.

[Harry Smith]

I think the government should stay out of this. We don't need subsidies to determine which forms of energy are best. We should let the market do it's job, and let the most efficient means succeed. The miracle of freedom.

Why is the US Congress then continuing to provide 5 million pound subsidies to the oil firms?

[NeuroTiger]

We have to exploit our natural resources wisely to generate electricity.
Quoting relevant examples from above,
The places with high wind activity, placing wind turbines will not affect the place, if only the landscape. Our engineer should find a good solution to that.
In Africa or desert places, solar panels can be placed to supply energy to needy places.
And so on.
Nuclear fusion is a big project...well I won't comment on it for now.
Nuclear fission is very dangerous with problems such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Wise use of energy is what matters...it should be quality-wised.

[Harry Smith]

We have to exploit our natural resources wisely to generate electricity.
Quoting relevant examples from above,
The places with high wind activity, placing wind turbines will not affect the place, if only the landscape. Our engineer should find a good solution to that.
In Africa or desert places, solar panels can be placed to supply energy to needy places.
And so on.
Nuclear fusion is a big project...well I won't comment on it for now.
Nuclear fission is very dangerous with problems such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Wise use of energy is what matters...it should be quality-wised.

Chernobyl was caused by politicians demanding more energy in a short period of time- it needs to be managed well- and the Japanese were asking for trouble when they built on top of a Fault line

[Walter Powers]

Why is the US Congress then continuing to provide 5 million pound subsidies to the oil firms?

Don't ask me. I'm against that!

For the same reason they provide billions in subsidies for so called "green" energy.

[Harry Smith]

Don't ask me. I'm against that!

For the same reason they provide billions in subsidies for so called "green" energy.

It's not very easy for the green energy to start off, this is why I think research grants are very important and tax breaks when they're developing but I don't support massive TNC's getting billions every year

[Walter Powers]

It's not very easy for the green energy to start off, this is why I think research grants are very important and tax breaks when they're developing but I don't support massive TNC's getting billions every year

If these energies are so great they shouldn't have to force taxpayers to pay for them, they should be able to convince people to voluntarilly invest in them. Same goes for oil technologies.

[Capto]

If these energies are so great they shouldn't have to force taxpayers to pay for them, they should be able to convince people to voluntarilly invest in them. Same goes for oil technologies.

But we need the grants to work. :(

Voluntary investment in a shady and uncertain field isn't a very reliable source for us. :(

[Gigablue]

I think the government should stay out of this. We don't need subsidies to determine which forms of energy are best. We should let the market do it's job, and let the most efficient means succeed. The miracle of freedom.

I think that we need the government to finance certain research. For example, researching nuclear fusion and developing a working reactor will cost tens of billions of dollars, maybe more. Governments have that amount of money and would be willing to invest it, while private industry would likely not. Since the benefits of fusion are huge, we need to develop it, but that can't happen without government funding.

That being said, once a technology is established, I think we should hand it over to private industry and let competition take over. The more competition, the more the prices would come down.

[Zelder]

Wind and solar.

[britishboy]

burn up all oil and coal and then nuclear!

[Harry Smith]

burn up all oil and coal and then nuclear!

Do you know what happens when your burn up oil- it rips the planet apart. The effects of burning fossils fuels are so clear- why should we develop something that not only will be gone in 40 years but also destroys the very planet we live on.

The price is oil will only go up further, it's simply becoming too expensive for wide scale use

[Gigablue]

burn up all oil and coal and then nuclear!

Oil is very useful in manufacturing. The number of petroleum based products is staggering. The last thing we should do with oil is burn it.

Also, we need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Burning coal one oil will do the opposite.

[LesterArnold]

Where do you think it is? Nuclear, more ridiculously inefficient clean energy, refining current clean energy?

In my opinion, the best way is the development of solar panel (http://www.shinesolar.net) via an aluminum sodium-hydroxide, which is a cheap and effective way that I recently hypothesized. However, there is the problem of a rather useless by-product.

So discuss. Where should we go once natural fossil fuels run out? Can we synthesize new ones? Can we take a different course?

We need to change our objective of nuclear way of energy production to solar energy system... More nuclear plants simply means we are getting close to disaster

[darthearth]

I like Generation IV nuclear reactor possibilities. Almost no long term waste and they can even burn (from what I understand) waste we already have. From what I've read so far, I think they are a good choice. Renewables are also good too. Between Generation IV and renewables plus the smart grid (with superconducting cables) we should be set.