Energy!

[theknub]

lol, well if we can ever get fission to work it'd be great

of course, we're also liable to light the atmosphere on fire and fry the planet

[Ascended_Saiyan]

I said Hydrogen, because my preferred method was not available. Personally, I like using atmospheric fiction best for generating the large amounts of energy needed with the least amount of side effects.

A thick cable was draped down from a shuttle in orbit. The cable was extended into Earth's atmosphere. It created so much electrical energy that it melted the cable. If we are able to harness that power, we would have a truly limitless power source around our planet.

Then, of course, is always "Tesla's Black Box" to fall back on, if anyone is bright enough to figure it out.

[jorg]

i have wrighten about 10 esseys on solar power and it is expect with contunied develop ment with solar power. it is exspect to have solar panels with 80% eficentsy and some with even 84% todays average solar panel is 14% eficent while supper panels made of super pure silicon are around 20%

[jorg]

Originally Posted by k20king

Wind becuase its constantly blowing.

The Sun doesnt shine all the time.

Go Blu Ray! https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=8039

only the suns wave lengths that we can see do not shine all the time beside at dead of night but even on the drackest day we still receive tremendous amounts of solar energy but it is inferred around the 800nm wave length im pretty shur

[jorg]

Originally Posted by k20king

how about a dam?

I know china just finished the worlds biggest energy dam.

Go Blu Ray!

omg i just watched a 2 hour documentary on the dam: here are some interesting facts:

-it is so big it dose effect the earth roation

-it is likely to be the case of earth quaks becuase of its supper high weight

-they are moving muilitply cites up to a million people to higher ground because of the flood zone

-recently discovered artifacts in the planed flooded area show that there is more artifacts in the flood area then in all of western and southern Europe!

-the chines s and building a 60 foot wall around a temple that would of other wise been flooded.


as a side note china is building new coal burning plant EVERY WEEK for the next 20 YEARS to meet demands for energy. it will surpase the usa as greatest emission generator in the world by 2012. an average American house hold generates 113 tons of carbon dioxide side every year. china is espected to employ 2,300 "green people" (people that come up with ideas to make china greener) every year for the new 15 years. 6/8 of all of china s major fresh water rivers are polluted to the point were it is undrinkable.

[nhaase]

Actually, I'll say that the closed-loop Hydrogen power would be the best. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you have a regular hydrogen motor, and when the water is exhausted from the motor, captured solar energy is used to crack the water back into hydrogen and oxygen. This is another reason more funding is needed into solar cells; we need more efficient cells so that we can have closed-loop energy systems like this.

[cdblu]

i also think hydrogen is the best. its cleaner than fossil fuels and its the most abundant element in the universe.

[Filterlab]

Originally Posted by coolmilo

Personally I am waiting for the Flux capacitor technology that was introduced in Back to the Future. I want to power my car with a banana peel.

Mr Fusion only powered the time travel circuits of the DeLorean. It was still just a petrol combustion engine.

Would be nice to run a car on banana peels, more people would have monkeys as pets.

[Rup_Muk]

NU-KEE-LEAR (with apologies to W.)

Look at what France has been able to accomplish over the past 30 years! The cleanest air, minimal waste - and even that is recycled. And then, they get to take the entire month of August off!

Power generation is only the beginning. The other side of the equation is consumption - and then there's the unmentioned cousin: transmission! There have been several steps in the right direction with consumption - and J6P is getting better educated on bulb wattage, fluorescent replacements, etc. Transmission is a whole another story - we lose almost 75 - 90% of generated capacity through the transmission lines. Think about it - that amount of inefficiency is worse than sitting behind the fire furnace that we call our car engines. IMHO, there is not much attention being provided to more research developing high-temperature superconductors.

That's my $0.02!

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by cdblu

i also think hydrogen is the best. its cleaner than fossil fuels and its the most abundant element in the universe.

We've just got to make sure we get it from sources other than hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). Right now, that's how many would like to get it, since it's easier to crack out the hydrogen from hydrocarbons than water. That would still keep us dependant on oil. Also, one main reaction to crack out the hydrogen from hydrocarbons still produces carbon dioxide!

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

short term, nuclear is the most efficient but also has the greatest potential for disaster.

Note that there has never been a major issue w/ nuclear in the U.S. or western Europe. 3-Mile Island was an averted crisis... nothing actually happened but it was blown into a media storm then a movie. Chernobyl? Come on, that's in the 3rd world.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by nhaase

We've just got to make sure we get it from sources other than hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). Right now, that's how many would like to get it, since it's easier to crack out the hydrogen from hydrocarbons than water. That would still keep us dependant on oil. Also, one main reaction to crack out the hydrogen from hydrocarbons still produces carbon dioxide!

Also no one thinks of the obvious, if all cars started using Hydrogen as their fuel, a lot of water vapour would be dumped into the atmosphere, and we all know what the number one greenhouse gas is right? Carbon dioxide - wrong, Methane - wrong, it is water vapour.

[GaS]

The world runs on oil and electricity, not rainbows and lollipops.

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Also no one thinks of the obvious, if all cars started using Hydrogen as their fuel, a lot of water vapour would be dumped into the atmosphere, and we all know what the number one greenhouse gas is right? Carbon dioxide - wrong, Methane - wrong, it is water vapour.

That's why the closed-loop system is needed.

GaS, we're talking about new ways to produce electricity, but maybe we could burn lollipops to boil the water, there's sugar in those.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by nhaase

That's why the closed-loop system is needed.

GaS, we're talking about new ways to produce electricity, but maybe we could burn lollipops to boil the water, there's sugar in those.

Then you are into the domain of perpetual motion machines, i.e. reuse the same water and energy made from 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O formation enthalpy to crack more and power your car.

Unfortunately it can't work that way and the H2O -> 1/2H2 + O2 takes way more energy than is made by the reverse reaction (theoretically it should be the same, but our methods are pretty crappy to say the least).

[nhaase]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Then you are into the domain of perpetual motion machines, i.e. reuse the same water and energy made from 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O formation enthalpy to crack more and power your car.

Unfortunately it can't work that way and the H2O -> 1/2H2 + O2 takes way more energy than is made by the reverse reaction (theoretically it should be the same, but our methods are pretty crappy to say the least).

Maybe you missed my earlier post, and I should further qualify "closed loop" by saying that we're using the same hydrogen and oxygen, but I was not talking about using the energy released by water formation to crack other water molecules back into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Research now is looking into using solar cells to supply the needed energy to crack the water apart. The reason that the reactions above aren't equal is because they aren't balanced.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Rup_Muk

NU-KEE-LEAR (with apologies to W.)

Look at what France has been able to accomplish over the past 30 years! The cleanest air, minimal waste - and even that is recycled. And then, they get to take the entire month of August off!

Power generation is only the beginning. The other side of the equation is consumption - and then there's the unmentioned cousin: transmission! There have been several steps in the right direction with consumption - and J6P is getting better educated on bulb wattage, fluorescent replacements, etc. Transmission is a whole another story - we lose almost 75 - 90% of generated capacity through the transmission lines. Think about it - that amount of inefficiency is worse than sitting behind the fire furnace that we call our car engines. IMHO, there is not much attention being provided to more research developing high-temperature superconductors.

That's my $0.02!

Great points, though I thought the stat was that only 75-90% was making it to its ultimate destination (therefore 10-25% loss). Perhaps you are right though. Regardless the loss is staggering.

I'm also a proponent of nuclear. Most of these flavor of the month "Candlyland" concepts are many decades from feasibility and still inferior to nuclear when you account for everything.

[nhaase]

Right now, while high-temp superconductors are being researched, another possibility is conductive conjugated hydrocarbons. They can provide the zero resistance, since propagating electrons down the conjugated chain is actually more desirable for the molecule, from a molecular point of view. The transmission loss is another reason for the "personal" power, like solar panels on your roof, or getting a windmill in your backyard if you have the land for it.