Energy and Environmental Technology forum: topic
This is a public forum
What is your preferred energy source?
Jeffrey R. S. Brownson
Thursday, 31 May 2007 17:54 UTC
Diversify or specialize?
Should we be using energy sources from as many different technologies as possible, or do you think countries should invest in just one or two dominant technologies?
Better yet, can we consider fossil fuel technologies as environmental technologies if we can engineer carbon sequestration (e.g. CO2 capture and burial)? I’m specifically thinking of the large amount of coal in countries such as China, Australia, and the USA.
And the final touchy subject: nuclear power. France uses it for ~80% of their power consumption. Why shouldn’t other countries investigate new nuclear power plant development? Can we really develop technologies to make the generated waste environmentally neutral?
Every answer has a political outcome that makes some people happy and others very angry, so which would you prefer?
Feel free to voice your opinion one and all! After all, it’s your world to live in too.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I’m wishing that the 20-30 billion that it will cost to make fusion a reality can be made available more quickly, current plans will take 50 odd years to be commercially viable. A faster rate of spend and it could be shortened to 20/30 years. This came from a email conversation with one of the researchers at the JET facility in England.
-
A very appropriate and fair addition Gavin. Welcome, and thanks for adding your thoughts. Ultimately, I think one must consider two fusion sources capable of large scale, globally distributed, renewable, and non-CO2 emitting power: fusion in the future reactors from industry, and one big fusion reactor about 150 km away from us!
-
Did I say 150 km? Add a one million multiplier to that scale bar, or we’re toasting. Blame it on the lack of sleep from a newborn. My apologies.
-
Hi Frnz,
The present and future generation is mainly facing problems or shortage of power supply .Today mainly we are depending on fossil fuels and petro products as energy resources.There are lots of eco-friendly technology to implement by humans.Like solor energy panels,hydrogen electricity,biofuels form plant and microbial sources.Moreover we have to minimize our needs so that we can enjoy all components of earth.
Bye -
Hello Everybody,
I reckon in the near future countries will further invest resources in developing alternative green energy technologies such as wind-, solar- and biofuelpower. Also, marine wave energy is a big prospective area which is yet to be fully explored for it’s vast capacities. As a country or region I think policy makers should meet the respective geographical circumstances and adjust energy production with regards to them. Now is the time to set the direction for the next decades.
Having a look into a future which lies more ahead I think synthetic biology will be able to provide technologies that are able to create domestic energy supply on-site, incorporated in recycling and a circular flow economy.
After all, it’s about becoming independent from the big fossil fuel hosts, getting rid of all the bad environmental impacts of energy production and educate people to invent new technologies for creating and using energy efficiently.
I just hope that decision makes will support the right ideas to lead the globe into a fertile energy future. We really don’t want to support any oil-lobby interests.
-
Thanks for the comments Frank and Yash!
Yash: I would comment that ‘eco-friendly technology’ is a key component within the principle of environmental technology. One uses developing knowledge-base of environmental science when considering the implications of our technological development. Then, within the context of the environment, we develop technologies to fit our needs (specifically energy here). Well put, thanks.
Frank: Earlier this year, I heard Prof. Dan Nocera comment on the three big factors that will push our societies to effect change. At least one of these three issues will get every citizen clamoring for changes in energy policy:
- Cost — because petroleum is becoming more expensive, to the point that alternative energy sources are nearing a competitive pricing. Plus there can be money to be had in new technologies and in carbon trade.
- Environment — the climate change that affects us all, and will severely impact our children. If you live on an island, on the oceanic coasts or in the great white north, you have already observed the signs of our unfavorable impact.
- National Security (for all nations) — if we don’t diversify our energy, we are dependent on a very few nations for source material; and if we don’t slow climate change, those most affected by the changes (impoverished nations and islands) will soon emmigrate to economically favorable nations and then we’ll all really have immigration issues.
Technologies and fuel sources that help us to redirect our global energy usage in a positive way, ameliorating pressures on national security and the environment while bringing new value to our markets, that’s a good thing. Thanks for the comment.
-
Diversify.
In Australia we are nowhere near running out of coal. It’s abundant, cheap, and the risks are well understood. I’m convinced that technologies to make coal cleaner (post-combustion capture, gassification) are an important part of the transition to renewable energy.
Back in my student days I was strongly anti-nuclear. In recent years I’ve come to accept that the risks posed by climate change are greater than the risks posed by modern nuclear reactors.
My favourite pipe-dream energy source these days is algae. An oil rich plant that can feed off sewage, absorb carbon emissions, and provide carbohydrate for plant stock to boot – what more do you want? Unfortunately viable algae to fuel production has yet to be achieved.
-
Developing cleaner power sources for transportation is perhaps the trickiest piece of the energy puzzle. The difficulty stems from two discouraging facts. First, the number of vehicles worldwide, now 750 million, is expected to triple by 2050, thanks largely to the expanding buying power of customers in China, India and other rapidly developing countries. And second, 97 percent of transportation fuel currently comes from crude oil.
In the near term, improving fuel economy is the best way to slow the rise in oil use and greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. But even if automakers triple the efficiency of their fleets and governments support mass transit and smart-growth strategies that lessen the public’s reliance on cars, the explosive growth in the number of vehicles around the world will severely limit any reductions in oil consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. To make deeper cuts, the transportation sector needs to switch to low-carbon, nonpetroleum fuels. Liquid fuels derived from woody plants or synthesized from tar sands or coal may play important roles. Over the long term, however, the most feasible ways to power vehicles with high efficiency and zero emissions are through connections to the electric grid or the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. -
This content has been removed by the forum moderators.
-
Diversify in all available arena but focus specialization only in few according to need of the local public/society and political situation.
Results
-