unlimited free energy (Page 4) airdrie50: yes I am aware of work in Iceland but thinking on a more massive project I think Yellowstone Park could solve a lot problems in the U.S.A.  Corwin: Oh sure... Yellowstone is an ideal location for a Geothermal power plant. But I imagine if you tried to industrialize a national park you may find a bit of opposition. Besides, it wouldn't produce even as much as your average coal or hydro plant... it really wouldn't solve too many problems. Corwin: Not to mention that Yellowstone sits in the caldera of a "super-volcano", and is going to blow it's top in the not too distant future, and take most of the state of Wyoming with it. The last time it blew (about 640,000 years ago) it had the force of 2,500 Mt.St.Helens eruptions, or the equivalent of a 500 Megaton thermonuclear blast... ... and it's overdue for another one. If it could provide a keystone power source for the whole of the USA, they wouldn't just lose Wyoming when it blows, but also their key source of power... probably not a good plan for the long haul. airdrie50: oh well Corvin we keep polluting the planet and paying the bills how about putting solar reflectors on the moon Corwin: You mean like some kind of array of solar collectors which sends the focused energy back to Earth in the form of a beam of some kind? That sounds like it could also be used as a really cool doomsday weapon.  Corwin: Nuclear. It's a fact that the human race is going to have to deal with. It's the only way to generate the amount of power that will satisfy our insatiable hunger for it, without the CO2 emissions... but Joe Public is terrified of it... more terrified of it than the catastrophic long term affect of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Wind and solar will help of course, especially if we all line the roofs of our homes with solar panels (which are becoming more affordable and efficient all the time), generating a good portion of our own personal power needs and relieving the strain on the grid. Where I live wind-farms are popping up all over, and a coal-plants closing down, which is also a good contribution (although many people are protesting it because of superstitious beliefs that they are somehow detrimental to our health). But we simply cannot fill our power needs with wind and solar alone. Nuclear power is the future - zero CO2 emissions. And hopefully we'll master Fusion Energy in the not too distant future - that's the real answer, with almost unlimited fuel in the form of sea-water... we just don't know how to do it yet. But we have newer and safer Fission reactor designs that are melt-down proof... but people are still leery because of the accidents and mistakes of the last century, which should really just be chalked up as a learning experience... we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water.  alpossmar82: small nuclear reactors for household consumption, or apartment block. Zero meltdown risk, possible danger from an explosion from gas leak or other method.  duncan124: So the Iran was right to develop a nuclear program?? And the Germans were just cissy to close their reactors and say we could n't cope? Corwin: Fission reactors should never get into the wrong hands... they can be used to create weapons-grade fissionable materials. We certainly shouldn't have little ones in our homes or on every block. And although we can use them to produce energy without atmospheric emissions, they produce highly radioactive waste products that require careful disposal. Germany's reasons for phasing out their nuclear energy programs by 2021 are political, not economic or environmental. alpossmar82: Often jist public relations and green fascism, lobby groups opposing proliferation have a good argument but creating lies and delusion to the general public? Unfair trading if education is supposed to be human right. (Edited by alpossmar82)  Biker X: i'm sure there is other technology that we are not even aware about yet, pretty sure it is possible Corwin: You can be certain that there will be new technologies over the horizon, and new sources of energy will almost certainly be available to us. As far as the "unlimited free energy" thing goes, I only see two problems with that scenario... the "unlimited" thing, and the "free" thing.  Corwin: You think that tapping a volcano for geothermal energy and building a power plant out of it would be free?? Corwin: Gravity cannot produce energy on it's own. Hydroelectric dams may employ gravity to generate energy, but it takes even more energy to lift that water up in the first place. Dams are fed with rain... precipitation is powered by the Sun... so hydroelectric power is really a just form of harnessing solar energy. And hydroelectric dams are hardly free. Human energy isn't free either... we're powered with food... food is expensive. When you ride a bicycle across town, you're burning calories... that food you ate to power your bicycle costs more than the gasoline you would have burned if you had driven your car. (Edited by Corwin)  Gawd01: hmmm perpetual motion machine anyone? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452518/perpetual-motion Corwin: Harnessing the tides can produce energy... say, if you dammed up the Bay of Fundy, and let it fill and empty over a spillway twice a day... and would be very expensive. @Gawd01 - Great idea... except that it breaks the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.  quarks: calybones "I run an extension chrod to my neighbors house." <------ this is energy free to caly Food ate for powering bicycle is food one must eat to live. Cost is not substantually more if one rides bicycle than if one sits and lets food become fat. It would not be less expensive for one to have car and buy gas. This is bad example. Energy for powering bicycle is not free but bread per km is surely cheaper than gas per km. Agree that science states energy does not come without cost. Just car cost more to fuel than bicycle. After initial cost one can use windmill and solar panels for free energy from sun. Harvesting enough energy to run home by modern standards seems unlikely to just have setup cost. Seems there will be some expenses on regular basis. The Law of Conservation of Energy means some energy is lost in friction. This means absolute perpetual motion is not possible. The models that even come close offer very small amounts of usable energy. Also them eventually need energy suply refurbished. Even the best clock needs eventual winding. Excluding solar powered. Nuclear power is most likely conclusion but will someday do much more damage to environment than carbon power. Hydropower is best source but not as affective as other sources. Issue is overpopulation and overconsumption. Best hope one can have is severe level global energy crisis is after ones lifetime is over. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
