Are alternative energy sources realistic? Are they just a pipe dream?

[RubyCat]

Will they ever make fossil fuel obsolete?

There's a company called Ocean Power Technologies that makes ocean buoys which capture the up and down motion of waves to produce electricity. (http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/technology) They produce something that has really caught my attention. Here's a picture of the general concept:



It seems like an elegant idea. You can mass produce the buoys. You transport the buoys to the appropriate location and drop an anchor. You have an array of these a short distace from the shore bobbing up and down and producing electricity.

On their web site, they claim that a large-scale deployment of buoys can produce electricity at a cost equal to fossil fuels. Fossil fuel power plants produce electricity at 3-5 cents per kilowatt hour. This company claims that their buoy system can produce electricity at 3-4 cents per kilowatt hour.

How realistic is this? Are they overpromising? Their estimates sound quite optimistic, but if true, then we have our alternative energy solution right before our very eyes.

[marmar]

1. They better be...

'cause I have a feeling that the world's fossil fuel supplies are a lot lower than most of us know.

[cthrumatrix]

2. for auto's...nothing is as scaleable and cost effective as oil

solar will be available to those with $$$$$$....which leads to jealosuy...which leads to unrest

[pnorman]

9. That's the criminality in leaving the decision solely up to Big Oil

Had there been serious programs to develop alternate energy sources for where the above criteria DON'T apply so decisively, we'd probably have oil reserves into the next century. A mandated (or "incentived"?) fuel economy program could add another century or more.

pnorman

[whistle]

3. Popular Mechanics fifty years ago used to show future dream

...technologies and I think we can have similar innovations to take care of all of the needs of the world. Fossil fuel is used now because there is a very small group of people who control almost all of the ownership and distribution of fossil fuels and would loose billions in profits should substitute technologies be introduced and prevail. This is all about political power and control of wealth, not what is the best course for the country or the world.

Hydro electric power plants use practically no fuel and still could be built in select locations around the world. Harnessing the ocean tides as well as wind, solar, these mini-tsunami flotation devices, Nicolas Tesla atmospheric energy which is virtually free, all would work and fit into a national energy plan. Bush has allowed another 8 years to be wasted by ignoring the situation so his oil fat cat friends can enrich themselves.

[RubyCat]

13. I used to think that vegetable oil and biodiesel were promising renewable

energy sources that we could someday make economical. We can literally grow our own oil. But when I learned that last year was the first year in decades that America went from a net exporter of food to a net importer of food, I'm not so sure now. Agriculture was supposed to be one of America's strong industries.

So much has been lost in the years since b* took office. America took a serious step backwards with the installation of b*.

[hatrack]

29. Not just that - industrial agriculture is dependent on fossil energy

Natural gas for fertilizer & corn processing, diesel for trucks, machinery & pumps, oil for herbicide and pesticide feedstocks, huge amounts of oil & gas for transport.

Biodiesel will become more widely available, but it's far from a panacea.

[whistle]

33. Right, as did the republican fascists in the 1920's and then

...real democrats took over and made a big difference. The repukes can't keep the charade going much longer and the numbers are really in our favor. A new democratic party will rise up out of the ashes sooner than later and we'll be back on the right track in America. The marketing and public relations people can't keep fooling the people and when they are exposed as being totally unable to deliver on their myths, the producers will be back in power. Get prepared!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. That's why they need to legalize

industrial hemp. It grows just about anywhere and doesn't need fertilizer and/or pesticides. Plus industrial hemp can replace wood for paper and cotton for clothing.

For a century Big oil and other interests have not allowed us access to this versatile crop. However, the time has come, because soon we won't have any other choice if we want to maintain our cushy lifestyles.

[klyon]

45. so true

Two oil men from Texas controlling the world, who would have thought, or I guess no one did.

I have a cat friend that looks like yours, mine is about 12lbs and the sweetest animal you could ever meet.

KL

[megatherium]

43. fossil fuel is used now primarily because

it is available in the amounts required and is still relatively inexpensive. There is no conspiracy here. It turns out the best fuel available (in terms of power per weight) for automobiles is petroleum (gasoline or diesel).

The problem now of course is that we are running out of fossil fuels. So we are discussing alternatives. Right now there are big problems with each of the suggested alternatives. The engineers are telling us that the only realistic alternative now is nuclear. From what I've read, I believe they are correct. (I have three years of college physics, so I'm comfortable with these technical subjects.)

By the way, I've never heard of Tesla atmospheric energy. I suppose that is because I belong to the reality-based community, but someone might care to explain.

[klyon]

46. no conspiracy?

Pulling up the electric street car tracks and forcing people to use gasoline powered automobiles by the oil companies and auto makers sounds pretty close to me. Cars run best on these fuels because they were design for it and Americans expect high performance both of which are choices we have made, if we had made different choices we might not be in this difficult position of possibly lowering our standard of living.

KL

[Selatius]

4. They are realistic provided we CUT BACK CONSUMPTION

We cannot have something without giving up something else. We must be prepared to give up our current level of existence and our luxuries for something lower than what we have now if we are to totally convert over to using solar, water, hydrogen, and yes perhaps nuclear as well.

If you can walk instead of drive, then you should do that. If you can do without air conditioning or heating, then you should do that. If you can recycle, then yes, do that as well. If you can do with less water consumption, then yes, do it. If you can buy a hybrid or a fuel efficient sedan like a Honda Civic or Accord, then you should. It must be a holistic strategy that hits everything across the board.

Everybody talks about how we must convert to new sources of fuel, but it seems nobody likes to mention telling people to stop being so fucking stupid with the energy consumption. Some tough love is needed here.

[Wilms]

5. Slam Dunk n/t

[cthrumatrix]

6. if it takes more energy to create these fuels then th energy they save

then these ideas like "hydrogen" will go nowhere

the "net energy" needs to be less.

[BiggJawn]

7. They need to start implementing this stuff NOW!

Don't wait until the Oil Tit runs dry and industry screeches to a halt, start developing this stuff now.

Ah, why bother? they won't do a THING until they're having to build steam boilers by hand (IF they can get the Kingerys to shoe 'em how) to power machine tools liberated from some museum.

IF they can find someone who remembers how to operate a South Bend lathe....

[RubyCat]

10. Research and development is dead in this country. Just look at how the

Detroit automakers have dealt with the revolution in hybrid electric vehicles. It's an axe looming over their heads, but they just ignore it. The auto industry is the last of the great industries that is still in American hands. I fear that this too will be lost to foreign competition, just like the consumer electronics industry was, if we don't explore these new technologies soon.

[RubyCat]

8. I wish I had a huge sum of research and development dollars.

There's just so many ideas that no one wants to pursue. Carly Fiorina was supposed to have took in $189 million in total compensation for her six years as CEO at hp. If only that money had gone into research and development instead of executive pay. We would never have put a man on the moon had the corporate executives of the various NASA contractors been paid in the 1960's what they're being paid now.

[CindyDale]

11. Electric bicycles?

http://www.electric-bikes.com/

[Warpy]

16. Try this one

http://www.egovehicles.com

I've had one for 2 years and it's my second "car." I'd rather do all the short trips where I don't have much to haul on the bike. I'm too sick to be able to ride a conventional bicycle, so this was my compromise. It's got enough of a range that I can get wherever I need to go, but I only ride it where I'd ride a conventional bicycle, so if you're interstate dependent, it's probably not a good option.

[CindyDale]

31. Thanks. I'm looking at low speed vehicles now, too.

The only problem with the bike is I wouldn't be able to take my dad with me (he's 91, and I don't think he would be able to ride on back!).

I am wondering now about low speed vehicles. I live in the city, and it's possible to avoid streets with speed limits above 35 mph, so it might actually work.

Here is the law:

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/state_laws/nevs.htm#1

so it says you can operate them on roads with limits of up to 35 in Florida.

Some of them look almost like a regular sedan:

http://www.itiselectric.com/products/index.html

Wow! There's even a Yahoo group for them:

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/NEVs/

Oh, I would be so thrilled to get a vehicle I could use and not burn fuel everyday. I've wanted to get into a less destructive lifestyle for so long, and these threads on DU inspire me.

[BiggJawn]

18. Batteries...

For all the range those have, I can get farther faster on my Raleigh by pedalling it.

There's some really cool batteries out there, but they may as well be made of Unobtainium....

[CindyDale]

32. Unobtainium? LOL

[uncle ray]

34. of course.

it's the mysterious material that Round Tuits are made from! apparantly it's the secret to a whole new level of productivity known to mankind. how many of us have been putting off things until we get a Round Tuit?
;)

[The Doctor.]

12. Most alternative energy sources are not nearly

as cost effective as petroleum.

What it would take to set up production would be hundreds of times more expensive per Joule, rad, or watt than just pumping oil.

Only nuclear Fusion holds real promise right now.

[Warpy]

17. Wrong!!

Check out thermal depolymerization. It's up and running on an industrial scale at a poultry processing plant. It could be the key to dealing with all those overfilled and leaky landfill sites, as well as some of the chemically contaminated Superfund sites.

It is a very efficient process, producing much more energy in the form of light crude than it consumes.

[megatherium]

39. Do you honestly thing thermal depolymerization

will ever supply more than a small fraction of our energy needs?

[RubyCat]

26. Fusion and fission ideas that we should keep an open mind to.

They may not be as safe or as clean as we might want them to be at the present, but I believe these are issues that technology will eventually solve.

[klyon]

48. petroleum is not paying its full costs

government protection and pollution for starters

KL

[Mugsy]

14. When you shift profit from one industry to another... they kill it.

Any form of alternative energy that robs Big Oil of their millions is doomed to fail in a massive negative P.R. campaign backed by the entrenched industries it takes $ away from. :(

[Rockerdem]

15. People have to change their views about esthetics to swallow them

Like windmills, solar panel arrays, dams, or any other mechanical devices, these are eyesores at best and ecological disasters at worst. That is, when done in huge quantities to produce a fraction of the energy that oil provides now. Most arent acceptable by present norms, and are iffy environmentally on a large scale. Energy frugality is the only absolute answer.

[RubyCat]

20. The makers of the buoys claim that they have a beneficial environmental

side-effect. The buoys produce an artificial reef that is home to aquatic life forms. Also, they say that fish like to congregate near these reefs and that fishermen will also benefit. I imagine that an array of buoys will also have a breakwater effect, sparing the shoreline from the pounding of waves.

Then again, maybe these side-effects are just advertising points and have a negligible effect.

[Rockerdem]

21. Would you want them in Monterey Bay or in the San Juans?

If not, no one else will either.

[RubyCat]

22. I live in a small seasonal tourist town by a lake shore. The coast guard

has a major presense here. If the bouys were located far enough away from shore, I wouldn't mind. I can't speak for others though. Realistically you wouldn't put these things right in front of the beach where the tourists go. The shoreline is vast and you can locate them in many places without a population.

[Rockerdem]

27. How is the energy transmitted?

Through cables or microwave, etc? What about all the maintenance required. Who wants their coastline degraded with all that??

[RubyCat]

30. It depends on whether the coastline gets degraded or not.

I agree that it might be an eyesore. I don't know what kind of maintenence is involved.

I believe the buoys are anchored to the sea floor, and power is sent over cables that run along the sea floor connecting the anchors. Eventually, a cable will have to run to shore leading to a plant on land that distributes the power.

[klyon]

49. the downside is they might interfere with "pleasure boaters"

and personal water crafts

KL

[Zynx]

19. Looks like it'd get ripped to pieces in a storm.

Most of these alternative energy sources simply don't put out enough energy, or have major logistical impracticalities with them.

Realistically, the only option is to go to nuclear/hydrogen in the short term and fusion in the long term.

[jdots]

23. humans are capable of great things

Once we get off this war and power trip we can do just about anything we can think up.

[RubyCat]

28. It's like when Saddam took power 30 years ago.

He could have focused his attention on developing Iraq's oil fields. Had he done that, Iraq might be as prosperious as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is today. Instead, he chose to use the nation's resources to go to war with Iran followed by an invasion of Kuwait. Now look at how Iraq has turned out.

I think about us going to war in Iraq, and it's sad to see all the national resources that have already been wasted and the costs that we will be facing for years into the future. And I start thinking about how things could have been. It was an unjust application of the nation's resources. We could have used our nation's resources for constructive purposes. Would have, could have, should have...

[Deja Q]

40. This stuff was possible a long time ago. Why didn't we do it then?

Reagan, Bush, CLINTON, and Bush 2 could all be responsible and have funded projects - knowing full well how the US economy works. (which is a funny term because the US economy, like a computer, can't predict jack shit. It just melodramatically overreacts when something threatens it. And oil's been the one support strut that's now on the verge of disintegrating.)

[sendero]

50. Exactly...

... these technologies are not ready for prime time because relatitively little R&D has been put into them.

It is human nature - companies and governments do not solve problems until there is a crisis.

The only "good" thing about Peak Oil is that it's effects will not happen in an instant but over a period of years. Somewhere in that period we as a country or a world will get serious about the energy issue and do something about it.

I'm confident that a better overall solution than petroleum can be developed.

[bigtree]

24. If we put in the same amount of money that we put into oil and nuclear

into alternatives, we could realize all of the expectations.

[megatherium]

41. A lot of money has been spent researching renewables.

$40 billion over the last three decades, if memory serves. We don't have a lot to show for it, nor is there any realistic expectation that substantial further spending will make solar, wind, biomass etc be in a position to replace petroleum and coal. These energy sources are inherently uncompetitive: Wind is too diffuse and limited in availability; solar is too expensive. Neither of these can be relied upon in the same way a coal or nuclear plant can be relied upon: continuous constant power output. (Downtime for current nuclear plants is 10% or so, for scheduled refueling and maintenance.)

We are in a position to make nuclear a significantly greater portion of our electric energy production. Currently it's 20%. France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear. In the 1970s, the French realized that the only way they could achieve energy independence was through nuclear.

[bigtree]

44. $40 billion over three decades? LOL!

Even if I accepted that figure, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the support oil and gas has recieved, including the recent subsidy of SUVs encouraged by Bush. The efforts have been a patronizing diversion from the actual goals of the moneychangers in protecting and preserving the status quo.

[msongs]

25. Hemp any one? some people here swear by it for everything eh?

biomass for energy, lots of applications I suppose.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ArmchairActivist]

35. I don't see any way around getting by with less...

... that is until we invent fusion cells the size of a cigarette pack.

Seriously though, this good green earth can't really sustainably support the energy consumption level of one United States, let alone this USA + Europe + China + India. Not to mention everybody else (like the entire continent of Africa) who all want the same things we want.

My preference is to find a consumption level that allows everybody to have clean clothes and refrigerated food, access to this here internet and some way to get to work. But is that even possible?

Go to that ecological footprint calculator site (too lazy to dig up a link... you're smart, you can google) and see how may earths it would take for everybody to live the way you do. I got a pretty good score, 2.9 earths, but that's still completely unsustainable.

And there won't be many DUers who both participate in the economy and can honestly get a significantly better score. (I live in a tiny house with another person and am lucky enough to live within walking distance to work.) If you drive your own car to to work and live in a normal sized American home, then there's just simply not enough room for everyone to live like you do. Not trying to brag (Nyah, nyah, I'm greener than YOU) or preach, but just pointing out that we can't even begin to sustain what we already have, let alone export it.

And as other posters have pointed out, there will always be environmental costs to any massive energy-generation scheme. Sure hemp's cool, but there's a downside to the massive agriculture required to make enough seeds to get enough oil to drive to work. Are we going to cover the entire states of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada with photo voltaic cells? Wind farms on every hillside? Lotsa costs there too.

No real answers here, but it's obvious (to me, at least) we've got to start using less. Kinda like 'first do no harm', but twisted a bit, i.e. 'first, stop being a glutton.' And we've got to stop breeding. The other side of my 2.9 earths score is that if we drop the population to 1/3 of the present level (still too many apes, imho)then there'd be room for everyone to live like I do. (Which ain't bad, btw. It's plenty warm, I've got a full belly, a bottle of beer and baseball on the teevee.)

It's all doable. We're rich and smart enough that we could live in paradise on earth. If only we wanted to.

-AA

[Toblerone]

36. As an engineer lurker...

Lurker here, never posted much (maybe in lounge) but you've touched on an area of my expertise. I'm a degreed Mech. Eng. and have experience in the field of energy production.

Alternative energy sources have already been explored in depth. We have to look at things short term and long term. Yes, the ocean stuff is great, but cost per kilowatt is huge compared to other available technologies. 100 years from now (maybe even 50) it could be a major producer of energy. But we have to find short-term goals of energy production that will keep our economy strong until these new technologies are developed.

The cost, per kilowatt, to harness ocean, wave, solar, wind or any other similar, current renewable technology is far beyond that of energy derived from non-renewable sources (fossil and nuclear). The only renewable source that comes close is hydro, which has it's own downsides as far as salmon runs, etc.

The only way we are going to get through the next 50 years without bowing down to the Saudis and causing major economic disruption is to embrace nuclear power. I wonder why no one gets it, at least on our continent.

[arcos]

37. A few months ago I read that a prominent german environmentalist...

Who has always opposed nuclear power is now for it, because he believes it is our only hope.

btw, welcome to DU :hi:

[megatherium]

38. I get it. We do need nuclear energy.

The alternative is coal.

[cthrumatrix]

47. nuclear would give us 10-20 years...then uranium runs out