Near Future power sources

[RayCav of ASVS]

For general discussion of possible power sources in the near future (10-50 years from now)

BTW, I prefer to keep this thread limited to energy concerns. I'll post a separate thread for locomotive power (fossil fuel engines etc)

Personally, I think solar power will be big. As long as the Sun's still up, it's practically unlimited, and provided we can harness it, it could solve all of our basic energy needs. I heard that they're working on windows that can make photovolitic electricity. They say a major city's skyscrapers can be covered in these windows, powering the whole city!

Unfortuately my source for this was my ultra Liberal (wakko) 9th grade social science teacher

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Clouds block the sun, and solar power plants are expensive. It would be better to have solar panels on a sattelite in space, where there are no clouds blocking the sun. It will be a while until we have such a power source, so for now, I say we work on reducing the emissions in fossil fuel plants, and building more nuclear plants, screw the envirnomentalist wackos!

[Sea Skimmer]

Every nation able to do so, should crank out nuclear reactors as fast as they can, nations which cant do so should buy them from other countries. With breeder reactors and proper reprocessing the amount of fuel is near unlimited and the amount of waste minimal.

[Master of Ossus]

Hydroelectric power and geothermal power are usually the ones that people look to for the future. Wind power is more sure-fire as an investment, but it is only useable for a few seasons out of the year.

[Enlightenment]

Every nation able to do so, should crank out nuclear reactors as fast as they can, nations which cant do so should buy them from other countries. With breeder reactors and proper reprocessing the amount of fuel is near unlimited and the amount of waste minimal.

!!! Consider the nuclear weapons proliferation risk. Anyone who has a reactor--let alone a breeder--is well on the way to being able to build nuclear weapons. Given that, on average, half the planet wants the other half dead, selling the tools to bring about armageddon does not seem like a particularly bright idea.

[Darth Wong]

Why should you worry about nuclear weapons? Just ask the NRA; more armament everywhere is more deterrent, so the world will become a very peaceful, safe place if nuclear weapons are everywhere

[Sea Skimmer]

Every nation able to do so, should crank out nuclear reactors as fast as they can, nations which can do so should buy them from other countries. With breeder reactors and proper reprocessing the amount of fuel is near unlimited and the amount of waste minimal.

!!! Consider the nuclear weapons proliferation risk. Anyone who has a reactor--let alone a breeder--is well on the way to being able to build nuclear weapons. Given that, on average, half the planet wants the other half dead, selling the tools to bring about armageddon does not seem like a particularly bright idea.

Which is why the United States should invest heavily in ABM..

Anyway, pretty much every nation with the resources and desire to build an Atomic bomb already has at least a research reactor or one building. There are lots of nut cases I wound't want to see reactors sold to, but few of them could afford one, I did say "which can do so" after all, not all nations.

Plus, you need a lot more then a reactor to build a useful atomic bomb, one that doesnt require a 10K freighter to deliver.

Places like Turkey, places with high energy needs that cant build reactors would befit greatly from them. And the French have shown that the mass production of standerdised planets can drive the cost down by a huge margin.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why should you worry about nuclear weapons? Just ask the NRA; more armament everywhere is more deterrent, so the world will become a very peaceful, safe place if nuclear weapons are everywhere

It probably would, witness the restraint between India and Pakistan. In the past both would have gone to war long ago. The Second Gulf war comes to mind as well.

[SPOOFE]

Why should you worry about nuclear weapons? Just ask the NRA; more armament everywhere is more deterrent, so the world will become a very peaceful, safe place if nuclear weapons are everywhere

A chicken if every pot and a suitcase nuke under every pillow...

Personally, I'd sleep much better at night knowing that I can eradicate my entire city the second somebody tries to break into my house.

[SPOOFE]

Oh, and to respond to the OP...

Solar power has its flaws. Clouds, as mentioned above, is one. As is dust (imagine the amount of Windex you'd need to keep those things shiny). And the fact that they work best nearer the equator. And the fact that they're expensive as all hell. I don't see solar power as becoming a major source of power. However, I DO think that more and more consumers will buy their own small solar panel units to install on their house... a bit of a return on their power bill.

Hydroelectric: This has one major flaw... there're only so many places where we can put a dam. And the fact that when you dam up a river, you're going to be destroying a good chunk of surrounding habitat.

Wind power: Expensive, prone to breakdowns, and you need a LOT of 'em. They work well out in isolated areas that get lots of wind (like outside Palm Springs), but elsewhere... nah. Like solar panels, however, I do envision consumers buying their own smallish wind generators (like Ecoquest's Windtree unit: http://www.ecoquestintl.com/eqwindtreepg.htm ) to get a bit of a return on their power bill.

Fossil fuels: These will continue to dominate for a while, I think. They're dirty, but the pollution they create is rather nebulous... it dissipates rapidly in air, and a lot of ignorant people don't think of the problem after that (out of sight, out of mind).

Nuclear: I think fission won't grow by much more for a while yet, despite the relative cleanliness it provides (sure, you have nuclear waste left over, but at least it's not several million cubic feet of crap floating in the atmosphere). Personally, I think a lot of the anti-nuclear attitude is a result of ignorance... the word "nuclear" scares people. I think fusion, once perfected as a viable power source, will have to deal with this same stigma.

As it is, right now, we should just dump all our untreatable waste into Yucca mountain.

[Colonel Olrik]

I've been modelling a device, named AWS, that extracts energy from oceanic waves. They're placed underwater in large numbers (like windmills) and work a long as there is some wave elevation (by means of a linear generator). Unlike conventional wave power stations, they are not fixed on the coast, but can be spread in large portions of the ocean. The experimental device (smaller than the projected ones) can extract a power of 2 MW for average wave elevations.

There are many possibilities for alternative sources of energy.

[Colonel Olrik]

I think fusion, once perfected as a viable power source, will have to deal with this same stigma..

The Nuclear Fusion :
Does not produce dangerous and semi-eternal radioactive wastes
Never blows up. In case the worse happens, the reaction just stops itself.

I think these are the two things people are most scared of (by ignorance or not). Therefore, the nuclear fusion will probally be most welcome, once the mechanical problems we're facing with are solved.

[Enlightenment]

Which is why the United States should invest heavily in ABM..

Assuming the various nutcases are sporting enough to only attack using balistic missiles, that's nice for the United States, but what about the rest of the world? Handing out nuclear materials and knowhow to anyone with enough money is going to result in a lot of regional turf wars turning into small-scale nuclear exchanges. While the effects are unlikely to harm the United States the regional death toll would be rather high. Now if you'd like to argue that the lives of non-Americans are irrelevant, then 2nd and 3rd world death tolls are obviously a non-issue for you....

Anyway, pretty much every nation with the resources and desire to build an Atomic bomb already has at least a research reactor or one building. There are lots of nut cases I wound't want to see reactors sold to, but few of them could afford one, I did say "which can do so" after all, not all nations.

Saudi "Terrorists 'R' Us" Arabia. They're clearly nutcases, they've got money and they don't have the domestic skill base to build nuclear devices on their own.

[Colonel Olrik]

Assuming the various nutcases are sporting enough to only attack using balistic missiles, that's nice for the United States, but what about the rest of the world

Just to say that if I were a nutcase I would probally think of a really imaginative way of getting the Bomb into the U.S. And then laugh at the ABM <A real Evil laugh>

[Tsyroc]

Assuming the various nutcases are sporting enough to only attack using balistic missiles, that's nice for the United States, but what about the rest of the world

Just to say that if I were a nutcase I would probally think of a really imaginative way of getting the Bomb into the U.S. And then laugh at the ABM <A real Evil laugh>

Mexico seems to be a really good but nonimaginative way to get things to the U.S.

If you could get your nuke into Canada you could probably get it into the U.S. even easier.

We also have lots and lots of coastline conected to rivers that go pretty far inland. Cruising up the Mississippi go north or hang a right and follow the Missouri. You can get all kinds of places.

[Sea Skimmer]

Assuming the various nutcases are sporting enough to only attack using balistic missiles, that's nice for the United States, but what about the rest of the world

Just to say that if I were a nutcase I would probally think of a really imaginative way of getting the Bomb into the U.S. And then laugh at the ABM <A real Evil laugh>

Mexico seems to be a really good but nonimaginative way to get things to the U.S.

If you could get your nuke into Canada you could probably get it into the U.S. even easier.

We also have lots and lots of coastline conected to rivers that go pretty far inland. Cruising up the Mississippi go north or hang a right and follow the Missouri. You can get all kinds of places.

Hauling around something that weighs several tons, and can be detected with a hand held device at a range of many miles is going to be a bit harder then you think.

Anyway, different defenses for different threats. Stingers wont stop tanks, and an TWO-2B is pretty worthless against aircraft, but both are very worth having..

[Darth Yoshi]

How'd we get to smuggling nukes? Anyway, I think solar power is viable as a small scale source for homeowners, but it's too cumbersome for large areas (imagine waking up, walking outside, and being roasted by those reflective panels). Geothermal is good, if you have access to volcanoes or something. It can work in places like Hawaii or Iceland, but not inland.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

In the 60's, people predicted that we'd have nuclear-powered vaccum cleaners by now. That was when nuclear power was new and exciting. Now, with solar and wind power, people are predicting solar-powered vaccum cleaners.

[GoneCrazy]

geothermal'd work if we dug down deep like in Asimov's Foundation series they did on their capital planet. (forget what the name of the planet was i read the series too long ago)

[Darth Wong]

geothermal'd work if we dug down deep like in Asimov's Foundation series they did on their capital planet. (forget what the name of the planet was i read the series too long ago)

Perhaps Asimov forgot to account for the losses involved in a Carnot cycle where one end is so far from the other one?

[Sea Skimmer]

geothermal'd work if we dug down deep like in Asimov's Foundation series they did on their capital planet. (forget what the name of the planet was i read the series too long ago)

Perhaps Asimov forgot to account for the losses involved in a Carnot cycle where one end is so far from the other one?

You could hollow out chambers many thousands of feet below, and place the generation equipment in that, close to the heat source, then run high voltage lines back up to the surface.

But I don&#8217;t think that would be very practical

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm thinking of sending a couple of huuge solar collector to near sun orbit, they then focus their energy as a laser, sends it to collector station one, located halfway to earth, wich is then sent to the orbital station(s) wich transmits it to the surface, also some of them have a built in code in them so I can take over them and threaten the entire world.

[Nick]

I'm thinking of sending a couple of huuge solar collector to near sun orbit, they then focus their energy as a laser, sends it to collector station one, located halfway to earth, wich is then sent to the orbital station(s) wich transmits it to the surface, also some of them have a built in code in them so I can take over them and threaten the entire world.

If wireless power transmission were practical, do you think we'd still have freaking massive high voltage power lines strung all over the place?

Do you know what a hazard to navigation an invisible beam carrying a significant amount of power would be?

Orbital sats are an interesting idea, but a *long* way from practicality. . .

Anyway, some alternate fuel ideas:

Hydrogen, direct burn
Hydrogen, fuel cells
Using solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric, etc for cracking the hydrogen directly from water, or else reforming from methane.
(Interesting side note - Iceland is setting itself up to be a hydrogen production hub - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1727312.stm)

Solar, water, geothermal, wind, wave, tide
All reasonable, but require expensive hardware and appropriate conditions. However, if hydrogen is available as an efficient means of energy storage, then it becomes possible to use these to extract hydrogen from water, and then ship the hydrogen.

Biomass (ethanol, methane to some degree)
Fairly ordinary energy densities, but much more readily renewable than fossil fuels. More likely to be useful in rural areas where the biomass fuel can be produced close to the point of consumption.

[Tsyroc]

I am still waiting for Mr. Fusion? to come out.

What year was that in BTF2-3 where those were available anyway?

[TheDarkOne]

Fussion is probably going to big, I remember seeing something about some company planing to make a full scalle fussion reactor, they thought that the main problem with the small reactors they have at some universities is that they are small, so a large reactor would be able to actually generate power.