If everyone in the world was enjoying our standard of living, pollution would be a big problem unless we were to implement "new" and pollution free energy sources. The technology already exists for many of these (eg. solar power, nuclear power etc.), but what about energy sources yet to be developed or perfected (eg. nuclear fusion)? Use this forum topic to discuss anything to do with new energy sources, whether it be ways to generate electricity, ways to power motorised transport, ways to heat up your coffee, and importantly, ways to power future interstellar space missions!

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Solar energy. We've got heaps of it! At least for the next few million years. I read once or twice that enough solar energy hits Earth in one minute that is needed to supply all our power needs for a year. Now how much is actually being used? bugger all!
When I was back in my final year of high school I did a physics paper on solar cells. At that point (about 8 years ago .. oh boy I'm getting opld! someone fetch me my walking frame) average efficiencies of solar cells were at about 8%. Recently I've heard of good (lab tested) cells working at approx 35% efficiency. An abundant, interminable (at least in the foreseeable future) energy souce ... how much coverage does it get? zippo! Now, unless you live in England and get no sun (sorry, just having another go at Dippy ) this sort of thing should be the backbone of power stations.
...Is there something I'm missing?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

one new feasible technique under study dedicated for orbital planes propulsion is fuel cells. these cells rely on clean elements like hydrogen and oxygen, which are abundant in the atmosphere (mostly in the form of vapor). the trick is in using solar power to undergo electrolysis and gain H2 and O2 from the vapor. these 2 gases are used as propellents without the involvement of combustion(which is why it's classified as clean). after their use as fuel, it happens that they recombine into H2O (it's all part of the process) to electrified in the next session.
Consequently, this mechanism is clean, relies on completely renewable resources, and is perfect for minimizing pollution and costs dramatically.

MOSTWANTED


here's the full detailed article:
[QUOTE]
[I][B]In the future, aircraft pilots may not have to rely solely on their jet fuel to power their planes. They could turn to fuel cells to power at least some onboard systems.

NASA researchers and aerospace engineers are working to do just that, develop fuel cells that could supply aircraft with the power needed to run onboard systems while jet fuel pushes the plane through the sky. More advanced fuel cells could even keep airships aloft for weeks at a time.

"What we're doing is mainly along the same lines as the [U.S.] Department of Energy, which is to focus on reducing the cost of these aircraft systems," said Anita Liang, chief of the aeropropulsion projects at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

Fuel cells can convert a variety of fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas or even the Jet A fuel used in commercial airplanes into energy without combustion, making them a cleaner and quieter alternative for aircraft.

Airships away

Liang's team at Glenn Research Center is tackling the challenges of aircraft fuel cells on two fronts. The first is developing regenerative fuel cells for unmanned high-altitude airships.

Hydrogen fuel cells like those developed for automobiles produce water vapor as a byproduct of generating power. Since water contains the hydrogen and oxygen necessary for a fuel cell to work, an airship could reuse the wet stuff in a regenerative system by using solar energy to separate it back into gases.

During the day, solar panels plastered across the top of an airship would provide the power necessary to turn propellers and separate water into its component parts via electrolysis. The fuel cell then runs at night on the separated hydrogen and oxygen, combines the gases into water and in the morning the whole system starts again.

"These airships are something very closely tied with our science missions or surveillance," Liang told SPACE.com. "So we're trying to get the [operational] time up to something more like 14 days at an altitude of 30,000 feet."

But the project is still in the technology development stage and a working regenerative fuel cell plane will probably take about five years to complete.

An auxiliary power unit and one small plane

Closer to home than high-flying blimps is a project to adapt fuel cells into commercial jets in order to both save fuel and cut back on noxious emissions.

Aerospace engineers at Boeing, Co. are working with Liang's team to develop an auxiliary power unit (APU) for airplanes capable of using Jet A fuel to generate energy. Instead of hydrogen fuel cells, the plan calls for a solid oxide version that can handle the impurities of jet fuel. While the APU wouldn't power an airplane's engines, it would reduce the amount of jet fuel needed provide the electricity need for most other onboard systems.

During a presentation to the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) earlier this year Boeing's David Daggett, as associate technical fellow, presented the aerospace company's plan for a fuel cell APU.

According to Daggett, a tail-mounted solid oxide fuel cell APU could save up to 40 percent of fuel during a flight's cruise and be put into effect by 2015. The project does depend on the relationship between how heavy a fuel cell is and how much energy it can produce. A Boeing solid oxide fuel cell APU would have to be able to generate at 450 kilowatts total, with a power density of about one-kilowatt per kilogram in weight to be efficient.

"We need to improve fuel cells to be about 10 times better than what's available now," Liang added.

In the meantime, a determined pilot with an environmental state of mind could put together an eco-friendly electric plane using off-the-shelf fuel cell parts.

A small two-seater kit plane like the MCR-01 model could be modified to run on a hydrogen fuel cell largely due to the similarity of its power consumption with that of an automobile.

"Anything bigger and things don't scale well in terms of power requirements," said Jeff Berton, an aerospace engineer at Glenn Research Center who has analyzed the feasibility of small, fuel cell-powered aircraft.

A small electric airplane would be much quieter than a combustion plane, which would be useful in small airports near homes. But there are major hurdles too; not the least of which is infrastructure. A pilot would need a dedicated hydrogen production facility at the airplane's home airport, no small feat for a recreation flyer.

"And that's a tough nut to crack," said Berton.

Fuel cell flying

Putting fuel cells aboard aircraft is not the newest of ideas. Over the last few years, NASA scientists have been working to put such power plants aboard unmanned aircraft such as Helios, a large pilotless vehicle that was recently lost during test flights in Hawaii.

"In a sense, it's an automotive-type fuel cell system," said John Del Frate, NASA's Helios program manager at Dryden Research Center in California, before the crash. "But there are some challenges, particularly the higher you go."

Fuel cells developed today are built for sea level atmospheric pressure, he explained. So any airplane fuel cell flying over 50,000 feet (15,240 meters) has to contend with extremely low pressures and temperatures of about -110 Fahrenheit (-78 degrees Celsius).

With a wingspan of about 247 feet (about 75 meters), the unmanned Helios would have been the largest aircraft to be powered by fuel cells to date. Solar panels would provide the necessary power for liftoff with ground controllers switching to the fuel cell once Helios was in flight. But Helios crashed 29 minutes into a June 26 test flight.

Del Frate is currently regrouping his project, but did say that fuel cell technology is going to be a widely discussed and applied technology in the coming years.

"I think we're all going to be tired of fuel cells by the time we're done," he said.------
END OF ARTICLE

My understanding of one-way mirrors is that light can pass through one way and only half the other. If we create a hollow sphere with this material, than shine a light on it, the light would move out more slowly. Now this should be enough time to finish the coat to make this a regular mirror if the photons where polarized then we could make a battery out of this.

Does this sound possible?

__________________
Why are apples not bananas since they are both fruit?

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

There are two problems with a using hydrogen as a fuel source. One is that it is a transportation system, and not an energy source. You have to get the actual energy from something else. Right now they are talking about making if from oil. That means that the exhaust from a fuel cell is just water, but the pollution that comes from the plant that made the hydrogen is still a mess.

The other thing is that someone just figured that hydrogen can destroy the ozone layer. Even if you made hydrogen from a "clean" energy source, there would be so much leaked from the transportation system that it would still cause ecological harm via the ozone layer destruction.

As to fusion, when I was in college 25 years ago, we were told not to worry about the 70's oil crisis because fusion power was only "20 years away". I have heard recently with the latest advances in physics, it is now only "25 years away". It seems to be receeding into the future at a rate of one extra year for every five forward. 25 years from now it should be only 30 years away.

As to solar power. At work we recently acquired some 7" square Fresnel lenses for imaging purposes. Which means the first thing we did was take them outside and burn leaves in the parking lot. Now THAT is impressive. Made me take solar power seriously.

P.S. : solar battaries
The problem is that the reflectoin are not 100% effecient. If you sent in 100 photons, then you would loose 10% with each reflection. The problem being that because light goes so fast, in a split second you would have trillions of relections and have lost all of you light. Too bad, really. Great idea.

"Right now is quite the right time to come up with an idea wich will solve atleast 60% of all energy problems of today". That what I heard from a scientist on a show on discovery channel.

Creating cheap energy has always had its consiquences, like nuclear plants which replaced coul. It was no problem 50 years ago, nobody seemed to care of the consiquences in the future. But then came the Tjernobyl disaster which was one of our first warning of nuclear power, and then came the nuclear waste wich had to be dumped.
If we continue making energy like this our planet may be inhabitable in some 70 years. It seems like a long time but it ain't long.
Some scientist have figured how to make fission in somekind of a reactor, they have managed to do the same chain reaction that happens on the sun or a hydrogen bomb. The energy released is tremendous, but lasts less than a second and is uncontrolable. It seems like we might have hope, but we are along way from making a plant able to generate so much energy wich lasts and can be controled. This means the idea is good but may have come too late to change anything.

If we are not able to come up with something effective, we may be doomed.

__________________
Always has time for the stars

I'm inclined to think that it is not so much that we CAN'T figure out a means to create more ecologically-friendly fuel sources. We can. I believe it's mainly three constraints:

1) We keep trying to make it "cheap." We try to develop wind sources, solar sources, fuel cells, then go back to the drawing boards because it isn't "cost effective" or less expensive than our current habits. But is that the only goal? I thought it was vital that we discover and use SOMETHING less damaging than fossil fuels, not just to save money whilst we do it. :blink:

2) We keep sacrificing good methods because they aren't a solve-all solution. We venture into a few solar panels here, use a few wind turbines there, but won't spend more on such things because they can't solve ALL our problems right now. I would vote we raise the percentage on all alternative sources while we're still working on it, and raise the level of research funding.

3) Pardon my foray into paranoid conspiracy-theory brouhaha, but such technological advances may be kept back or hindered. If I was the leading source of fuel usage on the planet, and didn't care much about the world beyond the present, I would do all I could to make sure I don't get replaced by something cleaner, cheaper and more ecologically wise. (This goes beyond the current thread to include hemp, which is itself a viable fuel source).

I'd heard about ten years ago that it was possible to get a car's engine to use gasoline so effectively it could get 90 miles to the gallon, but we somehow slipped back into SUV usage. We also know painfully well how corrupt energy companies can be. I think it's not only an issue of finding new ways to power ourselves, but also some political maneuvering and restructuring to help everyone recognize our need.

As a side note, I'm afraid I don't know enough about nuclear power plants to know their success rate and failure, risk level, etc... but I think that despite the very real horrors of what can happen if a meltdown occurs, it's a bit alarmist to veer away from its possibilities. It's a more commonly-used power source than one would think (read: all our vast Navy ships).

Polarbeast

__________________
<span style='font-family:Arial'><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:green'>
Are the dogs and the shrews friends? Is that what's going on? - Tom Servo

Satanism isn't an independent religion. It's Christianity Dark Bitter Ale. - Jim Sexton
</span></span></span>

TwAgIssmuDe, what you are referring to is Nuclear Fusion, which is indeed the process that the sun uses to generate electricity. It is the opposite of fission which splits atoms.

How can splitting and fusing atoms both produce energy you might ask?

It's all to do with the stability of a nucleus. The most stable atom is Iron (mass no. of 56 I believe). This stable state is one in which the least amount of energy (called nuclear binding energy) is needed to hold the nucleus together. As atoms get smaller and larger than this, more binding energy is needed per mass of nucleon. This binding energy is equal to mass (E=mc^2), so the some of the mass of all sub atomic particles in a given nucleas will actually be more than the mass of the nucleus, because some mass is lost as energy. Anyway, my point is that atoms smaller than iron (eg. hydrogen isotopes dueterium and tritium which are used in fusion) will give off energy when they are fused as less nuclear binding energy is needed. The same goes for when larger atoms like Uranium undergo fission.

Nuclear fusion has been sustained in a "small" laboratory scale experiment. Visit http://www.iter.org/. They've done it! The problem is containing the superheated "plasma" (matter that has been stripped of its electrons because of extreme temperature or kinetic energy of over 100 million degrees kelvin), which is required for matter to overcoming the forces of electrostatic repulsion so that atoms can actually collide and fuse. As soon as this plasma comes into contact with anything it will cool down and the reaction will stop. The way they're currently working to contain it (which has been modestly successful) is with large electro-magnets. The website will explain it better than I ever could!

Apparently they're working on plasma propulsion is a whole new kettle of fish. I don't really know much about it!

Keep up the good work everyone!

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Sorry, I made a mistake. ITER haven't "done it". But I think another group of scientists have. I'm investigating this source.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

I was going to say!! If they had achieved nuclear fusion it would be one of the most talked about things since the moon landings! Once one person has done it .. it's easy (well relatively). Like breaking the sound barrier. impossible ... impossible .. impossible... oh! it CAN be done .. and then people went faster and faster and faster. Fusion would open up the world to an unlimited (and most probably clean) energy source. What a thing that would be!

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Unfortunately nuclear energy has its problems. Besides the potential for disastrous accidents, the waste products take a long time to decay and are threat to future life.

Progress with controlled fusion sure has been slow. But there's already a huge fusion reactor at a safe distance of 150 million kilometres away providing up to 1 kW/m2 on Earth for free. The Earth does the courtesy of rotating so we all get a share of its radiation, too. B)

I think that solar energy, both direct and indirect, is the way of the future. For a start, the energy from our existing electricity generation plants would go so much further if a lot more use was made right now of solar collectors to directly heat the hot water we use in our homes and offices. As the technology is maturing, we then need to make more use of photovoltaic cells to generate electricity and wind-driven generators to capture indirect solar energy.

Despite the recent alarming reports about the potential impact of hydrogen on the ozone layer, I am sure the problems of its containment during storage/transportation and emission of uncombined hydrogen during energy conversion are ones we can solve.

Although hydrogen is favoured because its oxidation does not produce so-called greenhouse gases, carbonaceous fuels not derived from oil could still have their place. The carbon dioxide their oxidation produces is part of a much shorter-term cycle than that of the carbon dioxide that is produced from burning fossil fuels. The formation of fossil fuels is simply too slow. As an example, CO2 from releasing the energy in methane generated by bacterial decay of recently dead organic material (bio-gas) is absorbed by the next generation of plants grown for the purpose of fuel or food.

I think that hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells promise an excellent solution as a chemical-to-electrical energy conversion element for transport. The convenience of being able to refuel and resume a journey in a short time frame cannot yet be equalled with storage batteries.

Hydrogen is also compatible with the internal combustion engine so it could be phased in with today's automotive technology and be ready for the tomorrow's cars.

Paraphrasing what has been stated in a previous posting, hydrogen is indeed effectively a means of storing and transporting energy captured from another source. But so are fossil fuels, really. We are the privileged who have unlocked (and squandered) the sun's energy that was stored in oil millions of years ago. I think the use of energy in the future is going to place a huge emphasis on efficiency, because the collection of sunlight, despite its abundance, will take up valuable space and probably won't be as convenient (at least initially) as extracting energy from the Earth's oil resources has been.

There is much research going into alternative energy sources such as geothermal, tidal, wind and solar as well as more research into nuclear power. One technique I have seen is called the Advanced Fast Reactor. I do not know a lot about it, but it is apparently very efficient, produces little waste and passively safe, meaning without human or mechanical interference it will shhut itself down when there is a problem. Maybe someone knows more about this and can explain it further. I do not know where progress stands at this point.

I think overall that a combination of many or all of these solutions would be the best method unless advancement in one made if far superior. I also agree with Polarbeast that because the oil business is a billion, if not trillion, dollar industry and any research into something cheaper, more efficient and enviro-friendlywould be viewed as detrimental and ways found to discourage it. I suspect if some of the old predictions about the oil supply running out were true, we would see the major oil companies leading the way with new, superior alternative energy products (to be fair, BP is investing a lot into solar power research).

I think they actually have contained fusion reactions, but only on an experimental scale. Visit http://www.plasmas.org/fusion-mag.htm for more info.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

hey guys, ESA is givin in new ideas, OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY ROUND, we are those whoo...4get it!!

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMORAYO4H...otecting_0.html

Space shows way to Europe’s renewable energy future

31 July 2003
How can we more effectively harness the free and endless energy resources of the Sun, wind and water? One answer is orbiting above us.

Satellites provide us with a wide variety of data that can help with many aspects of the building and management of renewable energy plants.
ESA recently held a workshop at its Frascati-based centre in Italy, attended by representatives of the Earth Observation (EO) service industry together with renewable energy companies and utilities to explore how satellite data can be exploited in this area.

And this month the Earth Observation (EO) Market Development section of ESA announced plans to fund an international project to foster the development of EO-based services for the wind, solar and hydropower energy industries.

Europe is already the world leader in renewable energy. Denmark is flanked by some 2,300 wind turbines, supplying 15% of its electricity. Germany is on course to have 140,000 solar-panelled rooftops by 2005. More than half of Scandinavia’s energy comes from hydropower.

And as part of Kyoto-protocol efforts to curb carbon emissions, the European Commission has pledged that renewable sources will make up 22% of Europe’s energy supply by the end of this decade (up from 14% in 1997). As the importance of the renewables sector grows, the idea has arisen to use satellite data for better exploitation of its various energy sources.

Solar power

Meteorological satellites such as the Meteosat Second Generation (MSG) series can provide ‘sunshine maps’ that can help select optimal sites to build new solar-cell plants.

And speaking at the Frascati workshop, Murray Cameron of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) explained how space data could also be used to help quantify the potential power expected from a given solar plant and its associated performance.

Wind energy

Selecting the optimal location for windfarms is very important. Christof Stork of UK-based Garrad Hassan told the Frascati workshop how satellite data on land use, surface topography and roughness could improve the accuracy of regional wind atlases currently used to site land-based windfarms.

Offshore windfarms are more productive and most future farms are likely to be built in the coastal ocean due to the saturation of land-based sites. To be viable, offshore developments have to generate at least 200 MW, and to build on such a scale costs at least €300 million.

The problem is there is hardly any offshore wind data available to industry. Furthermore, existing data record mainly extreme wind events. And to gather in-situ data from a single offshore meteorological mast can cost a million Euros a year, and provides data only for a small area.

But using satellites enables a shift from a local to a global view. The sophisticated Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) instruments on board ESA’s ERS-2 and Envisat can provide high-resolution 100-metre data on the wind field, and a decade-long data archive is available.

Other space-borne instruments could come into play through the cycle of wind turbine planning, construction and maintenance. Optical sensors such as Envisat’s Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) could be used to carry out environmental impact assessments. And satellite images could also be used for marine traffic management during initial construction and later repair work, as well as for daily energy production forecasting.

Hydropower
Currently supplying around one fifth of the world’s energy needs, hydropower is a pollution-free power source that requires only the flow of water to spin a turbine. Accurate quantification of how much water will flow from a given region at any one time is extremely useful for optimising hydroelectric power production, deciding dam levels and setting electricity prices.

In Norway for instance – where hydropower supplies almost all the country’s energy needs – around half of all winter precipitation accumulates on the ground throughout the winter as snow. By measuring snow coverage and thickness, then combining this information with meteorological data such as ground temperature, run-off can be accurately modelled and predicted.

Optical EO data is already used to monitor snow coverage, together with ground observation. The operational use of optical data remains however severely limited by the presence of clouds. But radar instruments such as those aboard ERS-2 and Envisat have the potential to greatly supplement the amount of snow data gathered, because they can see right through clouds.

Anders Rognes of the Norwegian Computing Center told the Frascati workshop how they have worked with Statkraft, a major Scandinavian hydropower company, to prepare a snow reservoir mapping system called SnowStar. The SnowStar server automatically processes satellite information of several different systems, including radar imagery, for display within geographical information system (GIS) software.

The next step

Representing a first in the EO field, the Invitation to Tender issued by ESA this month is open to applications until 5 September 2003. The hope is that pilot services to the renewables sector can be developed, then grow to become self-sustaining.

“The ESA gathering was very useful in getting service providers and potential service users together,” said workshop participant Marion Schroedter-Homscheidt of the German Aerospace Centre DLR. “Now the Invitation to Tender gives both sides the opportunity to turn the ideas we discussed into reality.”

I may have missed it, but did anyone mention magnetic energy yet? This is a natural and a renewable source that is cheap, powerful & economically friendly, but it has hardly been researched. Nikolai Tessla made an engine with magnets that was one step away from being an over-unity engine. I know for a fact than a magnetic motor has been designed & patented for automobiles, but the energy commision has covered it up. Probably because the large car manufacturers don't think they could make much money on a motor that will last 90 years without a tune-up. Politics again. Humph.

__________________
<span style='color:purple'><span style='font-family:Arial'>Anything is Possible</span></span>

I've heard of such methods of electricity generation. I think tesla's invention was actually a generator that converted motion to electricity using the Earth's magnetic field (i.e. it didn't just pluck energy out of thin air).

My understanding is that a motor than runs soley on the positioning of magnets is theoretically impossible as it would suggest perpetual motion, in which energy is not conserved.

I've heard all sorts of conspiracy theories before just like you are suggesting. I'm open to the idea but I don't think there is any proof.

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

It is possible. We built one out of everyday magnets, wood & syrofoam that ran for over 6 months. The patent exists. I believe it is Chrystler that owns it at the moment. All of this is verifiable. I believe most of the diagrams are in Tessla's biography.

__________________
<span style='color:purple'><span style='font-family:Arial'>Anything is Possible</span></span>

...Oh, and it is not a perpetual motion machine, because it does decay over time. But it does approach being an overunity machine (i.e. puts out as much or more energy as it consumes).

__________________
<span style='color:purple'><span style='font-family:Arial'>Anything is Possible</span></span>

I'd love to see the plans for this.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Solar power, wind power, fussion, cars that get 90 mile per gallon. They all sound good. I haven't heard ion power yet.

There is a lot of technology out there we see developed as long as the oil industry keeps their world domenation on energy sources.

I remember reading years back that Denmark or some place like that developed a system which can turn garbage into fuel like gasoline which cars can use.
but the oil industry bought it up and we havn't heard of it since.

I'm not suprised when I watch my local city government turn down an industrial tycoon's plan to end our garbage and landfill problem with a process that seperates and recycles 98% of our local garbage making it into usefull products,
in favor of comdeming a farmer's quarry to build a regional landfill whereby the city can make money accepting garbage from other states. They use the sad excuse of our local landfill being nearly full to justify their venture without looking t alternitives.

Now if my city can do that, and the oil industry is buying out inventions, what do you think a pair of oil tycoons in the United States White House are going to do about alternitive energy sources?

I'd bet a week's pay that if someone could build a spacecraft that ran on crude oil
old G.W. and his croonies would be backing up space travel then.

We'd be on our way to Mars, every other planet in our Solar System and maybe even Alpha Centauri to see if we can find more oil.

I've got six 145 watt crystal solar panals and one 900 watt wind generator that charges six T-16 batteries. From this, (through an inverter) I can run my 1hp well pump, water heater, lights, computer, and stove unless it is overcast, and there is no wind. Then I either have to fire up my generator, or flip the switch and run off of the grid. Id by the equipment to sell my power back to the Provider, but it is quite expensive to buy then have the Power Co. install.

Alternative energy is a great way to go. When it works. Anyway, I recomend that you have a back up plan if you run alternative.

Wendell

Oh, the question was will it run vehicles like the space ship types? Answer: I don't know. From my experience with this stuff, I would not want to rely on it to make sure that I could do little things like continue breathing, or reliably get me from point A to Point B then back to Point A again.

Wendell

__________________
Semper Fidelis

Wendell;

I can't imagine the solar panels being very effective for you during the fall, and winter, (when you need it the most)
I lived in Portland in 1978 and 79, and while I conceed it by far the most beautiful state I have ever been to, it is also the rainiest, especially from early Oct through April. I remember being very upset because I didn't see a full solar eclipse because of overcast skies. Which I think also caused me to miss seing skylab come down.

Now much wind either, except for up in the cascades.

hi everyone!
I just thought up of something that sounds pretty weird but may be able to relive some problems.
What if we get hamsters or any pet that likes to run.. like a rat, put them each in a small running wheel, hook up all the wheels, then let them run. Or we could just wire these mind control things (Believe me, people have made these AND tested them) onto the rodents and make them run a certain distance before switching them with replacements. The problem would be getting all the rodents and taking care of waste and all the things rodents do. Or maybe we could get some people to do this, and pay a whole ton of money to get them running. The problem with that would be the money.
I get crazy ideas but somehow, if improved some way, this idea just might work.
ttyl!

- YMP

oh, and one more thing.. about using hamster wheels? unstead of just connecting the hamster wheel directly to a generator, we could use gears to increase the rpm to give more power.
Very basic stuff. hmm.. We could even use a bike-like thing for humans.. I think I'm getting on to something..
well, ttyl!

- YMP

www.geodynamics.com.au

A company drilling deep down in the desert in Australia where the granite is very hot. They pump water down and it's forced out another pipe as steam and used to power a turbine to generate electricity. There's enough energy down there to match the biggest hydroelectric schemes in the world. This isn't operational yet, but what a great idea.

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Nobody's mentioned zero-point energy?!

Yes, alternatives like solar energy & hydrogen fuel sound so logical, and within our reach technologically...but I don't think we're gonna see them replace the ridiculous oil monopolies too soon...?! Maybe when the oil runs out...?!

With the instability in the Middle East driving up oil prices, perhaps it's time to breathe some fresh air into this old topic.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

I believe that a long term solution to the energy supply problem should receive the highest of priorities. I discount zero point vacuum energy harnessing out of hand because, even if it proves doable, the technology for doing it is centuries away.

Let's see whether we can order our thinking (I'll try to discard using the Higgs field) to define the problem and evaluate and prioritize solutions to it.

How accurately can we estimate fossil fuel reserves that can be retrieved for positive energy production (is the coal sufficiently accessible that it produces more energy than it costs to retrieve it)?

What amount of fossil energy is required to emplace alternative technologies?
Photovoltaic panels
Fission plants (fusion is too far off in the future)
Windmills
Biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol)
Geothermal equipment
Hydropower
Hydrogen (production and packaging)
Non-fossil methane
Man/animal power
Orbiting solar power arrays
Genetically engineered microbes
Other

What percent of total energy consumption is currently provided by fossil fuels?

What portion of energy production can reasonalbly be assigned to each alternative?

What are the detrimental effects on the environment caused by the use of each?

How will the massive use of hydro-thermal power affect cooling of the earth's interior thus affecting volcanism and plate tectonics?

Can hydrogen be packaged for safe use by the "average person"?

What efficiencies and total energy costs can be achieved across the spectrum of events associated with hydrogen packaging and use?

When do we start monitoring the O2 content of the atmosphere to ensure safe levels are being maintained?

How can we influence the rules makers to take appropriate action?

Does this topic deserve its unique forum with the list of alternatives under constant editing? Each question as well as others, as appropriate, could be a separate topic.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Do you mean geothermal energy? I think we have it and it's operational. Here, in a place in Jawa Barat, Indonesia, there is a region with many natural hot gas sources. People from national company make long pipe network to distribute the gas to the power supply structure. The water is boiled and used to move the generator. I think geothermal energy is a good alternative. I'll try to gather more info about it.

Geothermal

I've got the link. Check it out !