Is that possible? I don’t know, though I imagine we could improve our filtering technology to reduce pollution.
(I assume you are referring to fission, since you list fusion later)Well, it actually isn’t real safe. And it produces large quantities of highly toxic waste that needs to be dealt with. Though again, with improved technology these problems could probably be mitigated.
A good option, which we should make more use of. But of limited usefulness in places that receive little sunlight. I think this will probably continue to be only a supplemental source. (But more to come on this below…)
Another good idea, but with two small problems: There are concerns over migrating birds being injured by the fans, although I would guess you could locate them away from migration routes. Also (highly speculative musing of my own), if used on a large scale, it would have the effect of slowing down worldwide wind currents to some extent. Possible unknown climatic effects?
If fusion could be developed, it seems to me that it would be a perfect solution. Clean, cheap, virtually unlimited power. But it may not turn out to be practical. We can’t currently achieve controlled fusion and get more power out than we put in. This may just be an engineering problem, but it may be that it’s not practical outside a really stupendous mass of hydrogen (a sun).
A.) Hydroelectric. Also provides cheap (after significant initial investment of building a dam) and clean power. Problems: loss of wetland habitats and disruption of fish populations. I live in the Pacific Northwest, where we get most of our power from hydroelectric dams. The salmon problem is a big issue.
B.) Geothermal. I don’t know much about this one. It seems to me the engineering problems would be significant if you don’t have any convenient volcanos nearby.
C.) Okay, this is the one I like: Solar Power Sattelites. Sattelites in geosynchronous orbit with huge solar collectors. They absorb sunlight and convert it to microwaves, then beam it down to huge collector arrays set in the desert somewhere. The microwaves would not be affected by cloud cover, and we could put vast areas of non-productive land to use. Once set in place, you get virtually unlimited power, practically free aside from maintenance (which could be rather expensive, but probably not in comparison the the benefits). Problems: The technology has yet to be developed (though well within our reach). Initial investment: huge. You would probably not want to stray into the microwave beam. And I am sure there would be some Sierra Club types who would protest about “spoiling” desert biomes.Also, it would have to be distributed over a grid, which could be an eventual problem, as bizzwire pointed out.
There’s another problem with geosynchronous solar power collecting satellites: the theoretical maximum energy output – assuming your process of converting solar energy to electricity, electricity to microwaves, and microwaves back into electricity is 100% efficient, which I guarantee you it will not be – is only 1400 Watts per square meter of solar-panel surface area.
Even if you could make monster satellites with a thousand square meters of collecting area each, you’d still need on the order of a thousand of these satellites to power a city the size of Los Angeles. And there aren’t anywhere near a thousand free orbital slots available in geosynchronous orbit. (Geosynchronous orbit is “prime real estate” in the satellite biz.)
Still, what kind of solar collector are you referring to? I know photoelectric cells are not terribly efficient. But I have read about another type (still theoretical) that are much more efficient. Have to try to find it…
Also, as for availability of slots in geosynchronous orbit, I see no reason why communications and other functions carried out by other sattelites couldn’t be “piggy-backed” on the power sattelites.
I would like to point out that nuclear fission is a lot safer and cleaner than many people give it credit for. The nuclear waste is a nasty side effect, but since the inception of nuclear power, containment protocols have become far more reliable than in the past.
I think people dislike it because it contains the word “nuclear”.
We should look seriously at golden carrot programs and other incentives to encourage research into ways to make alternative sources of energy more efficient and less expensive. It would take a lot of work, but we might as well get started now.
You know if anybody should be looking into alternative energy sources, it’s the Persian Gulf oil states. Their oil will run out in the forseeable future. If they invested the current oil profits into research they could really have something. They’re always going to have thousands of square miles of desert wasteland, why not cover it with solar cells, then sell the energy back to us?
IMO, the major problem with nuclear waste disposal is political. You don’t need to dump it into a hole in the ground for 50,000 years, you need to reprocess it. Seperate out the uranium that can be re-used, split off the usefull fission by-products, use glassification on the useless ones. The biggest problem is that weapons grade plutonium is a “usefull” fission by-product and not many people want more of that around.
But the idea of a nation nuclear waste suppository, be it at Yucca Mountain, or anywhere else is just as smart as pouring used crankcase oil in a hole in the ground, and uncountably more dangerous.
Nuclear (fission): potentially useful, but (as pointed out) we still need to decide what to do with the garbage. Once that’s ironed out, we can talk about the rest.
(If Dubya’s so big on nuclear, why hasn’t he volunteered Texas as a place to hold all our nuclear waste?)
Nuclear (fusion): it’s been ‘10-20 years away’ from being a viable source of usable power for my entire life, and I’m pushing 50. It’s a tough nut, and hopefully one of these days they’ll crack it. But to rely on fusion in anything under 50 years would be foolhardy, IMHO.
Solar: getting better, but still not there.
Wind, geothermal, etc.: it appears there’s only so much power to be gained this way.
CONSERVATION: we can save a whole bunch of oil really easily simply by requiring better fuel efficiency in new cars. And there are other ways to conserve energy with little pain.
First let’s do the big, easy thing. Then let’s worry about everything else.
Not that that’ll happen under this Administration, of course.
But one other comment: some of our power plants run on petroleum - enough so that electrical power prices move up and down more or less in tandem with gasoline prices.
Returning to the topic of hydroeletricity, I read an article somewhere, searching for cite, about the viability of tides and waves. A Scandinavian company was working on a machine to convert the incessant pounding of tides to power. This source is truly unlimited, unless we blow up the moon or something along those lines. The company estimates that they would only have to develop .1 percent of the world’s coastline to have enough energy to power the whole world. They have already created a prototype that is working very well in Europe somewhere.
It has been pointed out that the major objection to nuclear energy is the disposal of hazardous radioactive waste. Some people have talked about storage at Yucca Mountain, but I have another alternative…Afghanistan.
Another alternative idea and this is kinda out there for you city folk.
Composting Toilets.
Yep. You read that right. It takes your doo-doo and (when aireated (sp?) and after it breaks down properly) can be used directly into your garden with no smell. This wouldn’t work so well in NYC and NJ.
Read about it a few years ago in “Backhome Magazine” which is for people who want to live off the grid.
I have been working on Mr. Ujest to get one of these -just one - for a while. He is the President, Founder and Sole Member of the Anti-Fun Brigade ( not to forget the Maintence man too) and therefore, it ain’t gunna happen.
Shirley,
Actually, “poop power” goes even further than that: there are programs operating not to extract the methane from cow manure. Smell-free manure, with energy as a by-product!