Energy shortage
0
I'll make it short
In your opinion, what would be the most optimum substitute for gasoline as the world's main energy resource, as gasoline is growing less and less each day
Oh, and post your reason too.
In your opinion, what would be the most optimum substitute for gasoline as the world's main energy resource, as gasoline is growing less and less each day
Oh, and post your reason too.
0
If I were to pick an energy source I’d choose methane.
It’s a cleaner burning than oil and coal. It is also easy to obtain by either collecting it from bio degradable waste or by somehow tapping the giant supplies lock up in the ocean. Only problem with methane is I don’t see how you could power a car with it, o and it’s a super bad green house gas that will one day kill us all =].
It’s a cleaner burning than oil and coal. It is also easy to obtain by either collecting it from bio degradable waste or by somehow tapping the giant supplies lock up in the ocean. Only problem with methane is I don’t see how you could power a car with it, o and it’s a super bad green house gas that will one day kill us all =].
0
lexle wrote...
If I were to pick an energy source I’d choose methane.It’s a cleaner burning than oil and coal. It is also easy to obtain by either collecting it from bio degradable waste or by somehow tapping the giant supplies lock up in the ocean. Only problem with methane is I don’t see how you could power a car with it, o and it’s a super bad green house gas that will one day kill us all =].
You can liquify it like LPG, its essentially natural gas.
Tbh there's no energy shortage there's more than enough oil under the Middle Eastern countries to sustain the planet for quite some time.
There's a shortage because OPEC doesn't want to produce more to keep prices high.
For your inner city car electricity would be a viable option but batteries are nasty pieces of work and then you have to consider where the power is coming from. Which is likely to open up a whole new can of worms.
I think natural gas is the best option as it's plentiful, fairly cheap and burns relatively clean.
Also coal still remains the cheapest way to produce power.
0
Solar energy.
Thats the only thing that will be infinite till the sun dies out (along with all other living things)
Oh oh, and Wind too.
All Fossil Fuels will run out by the end of the century.
At least thats what scientist say.
Thats the only thing that will be infinite till the sun dies out (along with all other living things)
Oh oh, and Wind too.
All Fossil Fuels will run out by the end of the century.
At least thats what scientist say.
0
Combined non-carbon releasing energy is the only answer in the short run.
There's no way on form of energy can satisfy global demands, especially at the rate it's growing. Soon we'll need to rely more and more on nuclear energy, which is quite hard to control and regulate. A combined form of hydrogen-solar, wind, geothermo, tidal, wave, and biowaste energy will be able to satisfy most of the demand, with the leftover covered by some burning of cleaned fossile fuel.
Long term energy source will definately rely more on the solar-based and cold fusion aspects, and less so on expensive windmills, wave generators, dangerous nuclear reactors, and restrictive tidal/geothermal plants.
There's no way on form of energy can satisfy global demands, especially at the rate it's growing. Soon we'll need to rely more and more on nuclear energy, which is quite hard to control and regulate. A combined form of hydrogen-solar, wind, geothermo, tidal, wave, and biowaste energy will be able to satisfy most of the demand, with the leftover covered by some burning of cleaned fossile fuel.
Long term energy source will definately rely more on the solar-based and cold fusion aspects, and less so on expensive windmills, wave generators, dangerous nuclear reactors, and restrictive tidal/geothermal plants.
0
x-gen wrote...
Combined non-carbon releasing energy is the only answer in the short run.There's no way on form of energy can satisfy global demands, especially at the rate it's growing. Soon we'll need to rely more and more on nuclear energy, which is quite hard to control and regulate. A combined form of hydrogen-solar, wind, geothermo, tidal, wave, and biowaste energy will be able to satisfy most of the demand, with the leftover covered by some burning of cleaned fossile fuel.
Long term energy source will definately rely more on the solar-based and cold fusion aspects, and less so on expensive windmills, wave generators, dangerous nuclear reactors, and restrictive tidal/geothermal plants.
Nuclear power isn't hard to control nor is it hard to regulate.
Various countries have been using it for decades now.
Nuclear reactors aren't inherently 'dangerous' its only if things go really, really pearshaped that they're dangerous. Current and next generation reactors are designed to reuse somewhere along the lines of 97-98% of their fuel after reprocessing.
The whole nuclear boogie man image conjured up by the green movement is a myth.
There are plenty of geologically stable radioactive waste disposal sites around the world.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Yes, Nuclear Energy is definitely nowhere near as bad as it is made out to be as long as it is properly regulated. And it is actually really clean compared to other sources such as coal and oil.
Though it would be even better if cold fission was ever developed because that would pretty much remove any reason NOT to use Nuclear Energy.
As far as vehicles and such, electric will probably be the best bet. Batteries are being constantly improved for this reason and it seems like it is on the verge of the next level.
Though it would be even better if cold fission was ever developed because that would pretty much remove any reason NOT to use Nuclear Energy.
As far as vehicles and such, electric will probably be the best bet. Batteries are being constantly improved for this reason and it seems like it is on the verge of the next level.
0
Until we find Element Zero I imagine its going to have to come from multiple sources. Hydro-electric, geo-thermal, nuclear, rats running in wheels etc...
Now, I was watching a video from a TED conference recently where Bill Gates was talking about a new way of providing nuclear power. When we use Uranium we only use a very small amount of it before we have depleted uranium. (I want to say that it's somewhere around 98% of the Uranium that's left over, but I'm not positive.) In any case, according to him, not only would we be able to provide far more energy for longer with this method, but it would completely take care of our nuclear waste problems. It's an interesting thought at the very least.
Now, I was watching a video from a TED conference recently where Bill Gates was talking about a new way of providing nuclear power. When we use Uranium we only use a very small amount of it before we have depleted uranium. (I want to say that it's somewhere around 98% of the Uranium that's left over, but I'm not positive.) In any case, according to him, not only would we be able to provide far more energy for longer with this method, but it would completely take care of our nuclear waste problems. It's an interesting thought at the very least.
0
The orbital elevator idea as seen in Gundam 00 might be the answer you're looking for, although the cost to build one is already near-impossible even for our dear uncle Sam - since we also didn't have the technology that will allow construction of structures outside the atmosphere.
Nuclear energy is the only real solution of your question, at least in 10-20 years of foreseeable future.
Nuclear energy is the only real solution of your question, at least in 10-20 years of foreseeable future.
0
Yeah i know, theres actually this resource on the moon, helium 3 i believe, caused by solar winds that we could utilize for colonization and further mining of other resources on the moon eg geothermal.
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
Mr.Fuck wrote...
Until we find Element Zero I imagine its going to have to come from multiple sources. Hydro-electric, geo-thermal, nuclear, rats running in wheels etc...Now, I was watching a video from a TED conference recently where Bill Gates was talking about a new way of providing nuclear power. When we use Uranium we only use a very small amount of it before we have depleted uranium. (I want to say that it's somewhere around 98% of the Uranium that's left over, but I'm not positive.) In any case, according to him, not only would we be able to provide far more energy for longer with this method, but it would completely take care of our nuclear waste problems. It's an interesting thought at the very least.
This has been pretty well known in nuclear circles for decades.
The prime obstacle to reprocessign? The USA. They adamantly refuse for fears of nuclear proliferation... which although has some merit, doesn't hold water with some of the proposed designs, like my favorite the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, often pronounced "lifter"):
...that was the good news, that we have alternatives for safe nuclear energy with plenty of fuel.
The bad news? As things stand we're running out of everything. That earlier figure from spectre257 about oil levels... well it can't stand up to close scrutiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
The reasons are something simple:
1. Discoveries are slowing down, and even though reserves are usually underestimated (which casues something called reserve growth), the total rate of new confirmed and estimated oil reserves is slowing down, the trend is definite.
2. Consumption increases exponentially. The recent demand from China and India are especially worrying.
3. Humanity's inability to deal with the exponential function:
0
Dunno really. Morotsports/High-perf cars are a big thing of mine. What I see happening is the price of gas getting so high that other means of energy are developed. When that happens, my toys will go on either Ethanol or LPG. The bonus is that both alternatives equate to at least a 10-octane jump. More power!
