Energy

[Valerunner]

We all know that we're gonna run out of fossil fuels, so what should be our replacement to it?

I say Hydrogen. For example, with the Honda Clarity. It runs very similarly to a petrol car, but it uses hydrogen to generate electricity, and is roughly the same price to run as a normal car.

If the fuel cell here was to be used on a larger scale, we can essentially replace all the oil drilling with hydrogen plants. Granted, we have to start converting early on since it's hard to harvest it and we probably have to use oil to power the hydrogen plants first, but once they become self-sufficient, we can just replace the current generators.

tl;dr, with hydrogen we can live the way we do now with a bit of work.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

If I recall correctly, it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen atoms from oxygen in water than the hydrogen does to burn it. :/
I can't remember where I heard this from or if it's true.

Hydrogen (if the above statement is false) would work perfectly as described in Grimdour's post.

 

[DonKarasuMan]

Eh the flaw I see is that it's highly flammable and leaks can be quite dangerous. It burns with an invisible flame as well. Hydrogen's also quite expensive to be utilised as a fuel as widely as fossil fuels are being used as right now. :/

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Eh the flaw I see is that it's highly flammable and leaks can be quite dangerous.

Isn't that true with natural gas/oil?

 

[PichuK]

Seconding Hydrogen.

My father's been working on the Hydrogen fuel cell for a while now, and it's going well. I'll ask him about it later.

 

[DonKarasuMan]

It is, but the fact that the flame is invisible (and virtually indetectable by any other means, except by...well...hydrogen detectors) unless it contains impurities. Also, it takes about 1/10 less of an ignition source than gasoline to combust. But the fact that it's lighter than air means that the flame 'dissipates' faster than a gasoline-produced flame. The fumes are non-toxic though.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

It is, but the fact that the flame is invisible (and virtually indetectable by any other means, except by...well...hydrogen detectors) unless it contains impurities. Also, it takes about 1/10 less of an ignition source than gasoline to combust. But the fact that it's lighter than air means that the flame 'dissipates' faster than a gasoline-produced flame. The fumes are non-toxic though.

In natural gas there are chemicals that carry a strong odor to warn people of leaks. This should be done with hydrogen, too.

 

[Harlequin]

<3 solar power, tidal energy etc

 

[Valerunner]

<3 solar power, tidal energy etc

Those require massive amounts of land and resources, plus building dams can ruin the local ecosystem. It's like getting rid of weeds in your garden by irradiating it.

With solar power, you also need large amounts of space. So far what we have is an area the size of an average western roof to make hot water, and can be unreliable when used on transport. This can't be used on an industrial scale unless we either a) provide one for every house which will take at least 5 decades to catch on or b) plant some on the hottest places on earth (The Sahara) which is impossible because you need maintenance, and I highly doubt any of the surrounding countries can work a solar power plant that well in the middle of nowhere.

 

[opaltiger]

Those require massive amounts of land and resources, plus building dams can ruin the local ecosystem. It's like getting rid of weeds in your garden by irradiating it.

tidal power != dams. It is a lot less damaging.

With solar power, you also need large amounts of space.

Yeah, because all that space in the middle of deserts is in huge demand. Also, I recently read (I can't remember where, though, so take this with a grain of salt) that experimental methods are currently being developed that could increase solar panel efficiency by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Tarvos]

opal, maximum efficiency you can get out of a solar cell is like ~36% or so as I recall. In any case, the distribution of wavelength in solar light fucks it all up majorly because you can only use a portion of what's available to you (not counting what is reflected already and that jazz).

Also, solar energy is the only source producing anywhere near enough energy for us all. In fact, incident solar energy is about 5 orders of magnitude higher (120000 TW to 20 TW a year) so.

There you go folks. I'd write a lengthy dissertation for ya, but I do this shit every day at university, so I'm a bit tired of it. Feel free to shoot me a PM or questions or things because I am definitely interested in this topic and likely will pursue a career in it.

 

[Ruby]

Watershed, what is the gist of what you're saying? It's quite hazy. Your first paragraph seems to be against solar power, but your second seems to be in favor.

 

[Tarvos]

Solar cell power is inefficient and expensive, but the power we can extract from it is such that it's still the only worthwhile source of energy in the end since no other energy source comes close to meeting the rising energy demands of the population.

I'm just saying efficiency can't rise by several orders of magnitude (it'd have to go to 1000% efficiency which is... meaningless) considering solar cells average 10-15% these days.

There are marked improvements though, but it's all still experimental and it depends on the method you use and the conductor. People use silicon a lot, but making silicon is expensive.

 

[Espeon]

Even so, if you have a large enough space to put solar pannels where they'll have enough impact on the world's electricity generation, is the efficiency really too much of a problem?

Understandably if they can't do a satisfactory job, I see the problem; I'm just talking in terms of if they DO generate enough electricity.

 

[Valerunner]

Even so, if you have a large enough space to put solar pannels where they'll have enough impact on the world's electricity generation, is the efficiency really too much of a problem?

Yes. There's no point in having a thousand solar panels which can only power a lightbulb during a heatwave.

And with the silicon argument, the cost has reached the demand, so even if you need about £50000 to make a dozen, many will pay enough to keep the companies working. Back then iirc silicon was thought to be a Concorde.

If this was to be taken into the energy problem, hydrogen can pay itself off in about 15-30 years if done correctly, while solar power may have to take longer due to the efficiency problem, and incorporating it to our current power grids.

 

[Tarvos]

Even so, if you have a large enough space to put solar pannels where they'll have enough impact on the world's electricity generation, is the efficiency really too much of a problem?

Understandably if they can't do a satisfactory job, I see the problem; I'm just talking in terms of if they DO generate enough electricity.

Yes. If you generate all the electricity in the desert, transportation losses become a problem.

That being said, there is enough surface area to exploit the sunlight.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Is there a reason those giant fans that harvest wind power aren't covered in solar panels? Would it make them too heavy or something?

I think we should combine types of natural energy, like maybe a car that runs on hydrogen but also has solar panels and gains more energy by harvesting all that wind that hits a car when you're driving. Good idea?

 

[Tarvos]

Is there a reason those giant fans that harvest wind power aren't covered in solar panels? Would it make them too heavy or something?

I think we should combine types of natural energy, like maybe a car that runs on hydrogen but also has solar panels and gains more energy by harvesting all that wind that hits a car when you're driving. Good idea?

Yeah, solar panels on the fans would decrease aerodynamics.

 

[Espeon]

Yes. There's no point in having a thousand solar panels which can only power a lightbulb during a heatwave.

Well done on making absolutely no sense by putting this with the comment above. One light bulb is really a great impact.


Transportation losses? Hm, yes that is an issue really. There are always going to be complications. I had a thought about building underwater wind turbines in fast flowing streams so that you can generate electricity constantly without the turbine being in the way or too disruptive to the environment by sealing the blades off from animals that might swim into them.

Or, possibly even converting old oil rigs and the like into large wind turbines.

Probably pretty stupid ideas but they make sense to me. :x

 

[Tarvos]

Transportation losses? Hm, yes that is an issue really. There are always going to be complications. I had a thought about building underwater wind turbines in fast flowing streams so that you can generate electricity constantly without the turbine being in the way or too disruptive to the environment by sealing the blades off from animals that might swim into them.

This kind of stuff is already being developed or put into practice.

Or, possibly even converting old oil rigs and the like into large wind turbines.

Dunno if you have the right material on an oil rig, but offshore wind parks are definitely a good clean source of energy.