Thread: Sustainable Energy Sources

Where do you feel energy will be going within the next 10 or so years from now? I'm doing a project about sustainable energy in 2020... I'm focusing strongly on the need to redesign global infrastructure in order to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels and replace them with hydrogen and other alternative energy sources. These sustainable sources will be more economical, prevent global/social conflict, be more environment friendly, and better to our health. Most importantly, the source is clean, plentiful, renewable, and will sustain into future generations.

Any ideas? I'd like to hear any thoughts regarding automotive or commercial energy of the future.

Well, heres my thoughts on it.

1. Our energy demands have reached a point that no one energy source, renewable or not, will not sustain us. The obvious is that we either have to reduce consumption or find new sources. I do not buy into the global warming terror but it is obvious we do have an impact on the environment. But thats another issue altogether.

2. The major players out there now with regards to renewable sources is solar and wind. Neither of which is anywhere near being able to have an impact on a large scale. However, in rural areas I believe they can and probably will, particularly as investment and operating costs comes down. To see this, search on or check into wind farms. Solar farms are not as prevalent here in the US but they are to some degree in Europe and such.

I have seen technologies that generate electricity from ocean currents. I dont believe it generates as much as say a wind turbine, but it may be enough to supplement nicely coastal areas, where the majority of our populations are. It can also be out of sight so to speak so as to not offend those that are short sighted to such a point to be bothered by a a wind turbine or large solar array.

3. I do not think you will replace hydrocarbon based fuels. I just dont see it happening. When they run out, then maybe. I have seen fringe reports of work being done on synthetic fuels, much like synthetic motor oil. That could certainly put a dent in things if it can be done but still leaves us with burning hydrocarbon based fuels. But quite honestly dont look for them to go away any where in the near future.

4. Renewable sources, now, are only more economical because of the higher cost of hydrocarbon based energy sources. So with regards to economics, I dont see that it will be that economical if hydrocarbon based prices come down. That will take a change of mentality that this 'extra' cost is something we should do because its better overall in many facets, not solely because of economics.

5. Global conflict. Dont look for this to change either. If our cars, industrial centers, etc could all be powered by bubble gum, then conflicts would break out over that. Im not a pessimist, just being realistic about the human condition and approach to things. No matter what energy source prevails, there will be a top tier producer and everyone else and everyone else will be screaming subsidize us, its not fair, or want to start a conflict to in vain attempts to equalize things.

We can do more environmentally friendly, we can use energy sources that are less threatening to our health, and so on, but it will take a thinking process change to go there for the long term. The simple fact is that if we do not use renewable energy, it will not sustain us for 'future' generations as any energy source that is not renewable has a finite life span or useage. But our renewable sources are not yet at the point of being able have large scale impacts without people getting over themselves and being willing to put up with such things as wind turbines and solar arrays.

^^^ I agree with scotty, there is no one way to solve the energy situation going on. There will probably be a combination of solutions that lead to a more equalized energy market, but I do believe that hydrocarbon based fuels will be the major percentage of human energy for long time to come.

I think we need to look at energy efficiency for the future. I mean, a IC engine in a car is about 30% thermally efficient, and the drive line is less than 90% efficient, so we only get to use less than 27% of the energy that is released by burning our gasoline.... Power plants have a similar efficiency level. If IC engines were made to be 60% efficent, you just cut the worlds dino-fuel consumption in half.....

Oh, and gas-hybrids are a band-aid, only diesel-hybrids seem to have enough of a difference in gas mileage to negate the cost over a conventional setup

~ end rant

P.S. We can hope for Fusion power for commercial.....Hope being the key word

They're finding pretty cool uses for coal these days way behind what we used to think it could be used for. Other than that I see us going to electric vehicles one day, but what will power the electricity I'm not sure. Safe nuclear power plants?

Oil baby !

Oh... that's only for us in Canada

The only truly sustainable energy sources are those that capture otherwise unused energy (solar, wind, etc). Anything else, even hydrogen, is a finite resource that has the potential to be consumed. We'd need to drastically reduce our consumption (not likely as more areas of the world become industrialized and population continues to grow) to power all of civilization on 100% sustainable energy. Conservation will only get us so far, and will really only be effective if we also work to reduce population growth.

A huge part of the problem with current power sources is that, no matter what the heat source (fossil fuel, nuclear, geothermal, etc), they still use the same Rankine Cycle steam plant. Essentially heat is used to boil water into steam, which is sent to a turbine. After the turbine, the steam has to be condensed back into water to be pumped back into the steam generator and reused. Huge amounts of energy are wasted in the condenser, making steam plant inherently inefficient.

They are working on ways to convert heat directly into electricity, which would eliminate the inefficient steam system, but these are still a long way off. Developing a more efficient way to harness this energy would be a huge step in conserving finite energy resources.

I also don't see hydrocarbon based fuels going away any time soon. Even if we switch cars over to electric, larger vehicles (ships and planes) would be a lot harder to convert to a renewable source. Synthetic fuels are a good idea to reduce emissions and dependence on a finite resource, but it would still take more energy to make them then you'd get out of them.

Nuclear is probably the most feasible non-fossil fuel option for ships, but there are a lot of safety and regulatory concerns with letting Joe Idiot (or Mohammed al-Boom) operate a nuclear reactor. There are a couple of civilian nuclear vessels (mostly ice breakers), but right now there's few enough to provide plenty of regulatory oversight. It wouldn't be possible to provide as much oversight if entire commercial fleets switched to nuclear.

The best way to reduce non-renewable energy consumed by personal vehicles (cars) is to eliminate the need for these vehicles. Problem is, suburban sprawl (where most Americans live) traps people in their development so that they require a car to get anywhere else. Even moving within most developments is difficult without a car. We'd need a long term solution to redesign our cities to eliminate sprawl and be more pedestrian and public transportation friendly.