Alternative Fuels Discussion Thread

[Azuremen]

I can understand people being upset with an electric Mustang or something, (although I'm sure a Tesla Roadster is ridiculously fun to drive), but who cares about how the engine sounds in a Corolla. It doesn't sound good, and I wouldn't miss it if someone replaced my engine with an electric powerplant tomorrow.

Having seen a Tesla roadster blast onto an on ramp in Palo Alto, it looks fun and nimble. And torque.

And honestly, electric motors are also a good bet for larger cars, though weight can be a bit of an issue. But I mean, no one wants to hear the engine anyhow in an LS or 7 series - they want a smooth ride, smooth power, and refinement. And the flat, broad torque of an electric motor would suit the style of those quite well.

Oh, no... I don't think it's a complete replacement. I'm imagining it will be a portion of the pie. The idea of hydrogen working and being the answer in place of liquid fuels isn't factually wrong, as you're pointing it out as impractical and nonviable. Hydrogen will be the portable fuel, similar to the way we use gasoline today. Batteries are not fuel, they're a carrier. I thought the discussion was on fuels, not the carrier.

Hydrogen is just another way to store kinetic energy. Which is exactly what batteries are. Trying to say they aren't the same thing - a means to store energy to move a vehicle - is splitting hairs.

In trying to eliminate non-renewable energy, homes will probably be powered by some sort of wind/water hybrid through the grid, enhanced by solar panels. I imagine that cars will have some sort of battery technology, but having a backup source with the compressed hydrogen. If the batteries will only take you so far, or break down (fail), the hydrogen can take you the rest of the way and/or add a performance value(see next paragraph).

You won't have the space to load a car with batteries and a pressurized tank with a fuel cell system. All to ultimately get electric power.

How are we getting hydrogen? Realistically, where do you see that energy coming from? You can't magically store something under pressure without spending a large amount of energy to do so. And then separating hydrogen from oxygen requires a very easy to calculate amount of energy. We aren't going to magically change how physics works.

High performance vehicles probably won't run on just batteries alone(If at all), they'll run on something else. Hydrogen can provide up to 4 times as much power as gasoline. In terms of expenses, since when does expensive fuel deter racing enthusiasts? Today, people are using 110 octane at more than $10 per gallon.

Please give me those figures on the hydrogen and energy release versus gasoline. And in what application.

What is spent at the highest ends is radically different than consumer level products. And racing could just as easily swap batteries out, which would have less risk than putting pressurized hydrogen into a tank. And far less risk in an accident.

Fission is good, aside from the waste and the danger. Fusion is the ultimate, but I doubt we'll even get close to it in our grandchildren's lifetime.

Waste is the only real issue. Danger is mostly the result of media sensationalism resulting from the insane nature of the Japanese earthquake issues. I imagine we will see stable fusion before we die, given they can perform it right now but more energy is being spent to stabilize the process that being returned.

 

[Jubby]

You won't have the space to load a car with batteries and a pressurized tank with a fuel cell system. All to ultimately get electric power.

Space? If the batteries are getting smaller, lighter, and more efficient (which I believe is part of your point), and the pressurized tank of 4.1 kg hydrogen which equals about 7.5 gallons of gas in terms of range are in a car... why not? They already have both in cars already that work. Are you thinking the tank needs to be bigger? Please provide me with information that shows that this is impractical in terms of space.

Please give me those figures on the hydrogen and energy release versus gasoline. And in what application.

Known energy density per kg: Hydrogen-123 megajoules*, Gasoline-47.2 megajoules
*when used in experimental hydrogen automobile engines at 10,000psi
One major point to realize with the above numbers, I was talking potential. My previous claim of up to 4 times is shown above(I know it's only 260%, but I'm thinking of the potential down the road). I don't think 10,000psi is practical for everyday use. 5,000 psi is a closer number, and obviously would not have as much energy available.
Using another measuring stick; if you measure it in an octane rating, hydrogen has a research octane number (RON) of 130+ whereas traditional gas in the US is around 91-92.

What is spent at the highest ends is radically different than consumer level products. And racing could just as easily swap batteries out, which would have less risk than putting pressurized hydrogen into a tank. And far less risk in an accident.

So, there's no argument here. Since neither of us can be factual on this point, let's not bother with it anymore.

How are we getting hydrogen? Realistically, where do you see that energy coming from? You can't magically store something under pressure without spending a large amount of energy to do so. And then separating hydrogen from oxygen requires a very easy to calculate amount of energy. We aren't going to magically change how physics works.

If you're debating my opinion, then the above is not part of it. I'm talking conceptual. Try that approach for once in this debate. I believe that's what I was asking for, so I'll be blunt now. I see your point on the actuality of the impracticality today, try to see my conceptual vision.

 

[Joel]

Having seen a Tesla roadster blast onto an on ramp in Palo Alto, it looks fun and nimble. And torque.

And honestly, electric motors are also a good bet for larger cars, though weight can be a bit of an issue. But I mean, no one wants to hear the engine anyhow in an LS or 7 series - they want a smooth ride, smooth power, and refinement. And the flat, broad torque of an electric motor would suit the style of those quite well.

It just makes sense all around. For a long time, I'm sure Corvettes and Vipers will have big V8 and V10 engines, but electric seems like the better option in anything else. It's a little saddening to think of how much gas gets burnt in small boring cars, I drive less than 50km most days, I could easily use an Electric car, even with the ranges of the models today (Leaf/Volt). I don't live in the city either, I live in a small rural farming community. It just makes altogether so much sense. The only potential downside I can think of is heating the cabin of a car in the winter. It was -10C last week with bone chilling winds. I'm not so sure an electric heater would do the job very quickly. That being said, I'm sure you could leave the car plugged in and have the heater programmed to start an hour before you usually leave for school.

I dunno, it's all just so fascinating to me. I can't wait to see what kind of solutions the automotive industry can come up with.

 

[Azuremen]

If you're debating my opinion, then the above is not part of it. I'm talking conceptual. Try that approach for once in this debate. I believe that's what I was asking for, so I'll be blunt now. I see your point on the actuality of the impracticality today, try to see my conceptual vision.

Thank you for making the point so I don't have to. There is no need to conceptualize how we will power cars when...

Space? If the batteries are getting smaller, lighter, and more efficient

With rapid charge systems and more efficient batteries, there would be zero need to waste energy to produce hydrogen. Again, hydrogen fuel cell systems are nothing more than another type of battery. One that will always be less efficient in the grand scheme of things.

Hydrogen has zero place in the far future. Why? Because batteries are already a cheaper and more efficient option, and will only continue to be that way. Hydrogen fuel cells were only considered because they were a rapid fueling/recharge alternative to standard batteries. As many others have stated, it is too expensive and not nearly as efficient as staying with just electricity.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Would I be wrong in saying that nuclear power and battery powered cars is pretty much the inevitability of the situation?

Kinda, but it's not inevitable.

Right now there's a major issue, it's called the environment. People want to save it, people want to protect and people want to build on it.

The problem is the first 2 types of people aren't really co-operating. The save it people want to reduce CO2 emissions (I also want to, but more because of the foreign energy reliance it will leave us with), and the protect it people don't want you destroying any more of it. Except the un-conventional power generation very rarely sits well on the site of existing conventional power stations. For example, there aren't many power stations on windy mountains, or gas power stations in tidal estuaries.

Near me they plan to build one of the biggest tidal barrages the world has seen in an estuary with the second largest tidal range in the world. At it's largest proposal it could power 5% of the UK. People who want to save the environment love it. Except it'll destroy mud flats, habitats of wading birds and disrupt the river eco-system. So people wanting to protect the environment hate it.

So bringing it back to the point, Nuclear will thrive if we can only decide to build on pre-existing power plant sites. Replacing coal and oil power stations as they expire. But if it can be decided that we need to build in places we haven't built before we can produce much of the electricity without Nuclear becoming dominant.

 

[Jubby]

With rapid charge systems and more efficient batteries, there would be zero need to waste energy to produce hydrogen. Again, hydrogen fuel cell systems are nothing more than another type of battery. One that will always be less efficient in the grand scheme of things.

Hydrogen has zero place in the far future. Why? Because batteries are already a cheaper and more efficient option, and will only continue to be that way. Hydrogen fuel cells were only considered because they were a rapid fueling/recharge alternative to standard batteries. As many others have stated, it is too expensive and not nearly as efficient as staying with just electricity.

I'll move on from my point, as you raise a huge question in my mind.

Where are you getting this electricity from?

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll move on from my point, as you raise a huge question in my mind.

Where are you getting this electricity from?

I can take that: Power stations (/small percentage of renewable sources), via the grid.

Where are you getting the electricity used to harvest the hydrogen, that will later be turned back into electricity?

 

[niky]

I'll move on from my point, as you raise a huge question in my mind.

Where are you getting this electricity from?

Wherever we get electricity from now.

The great thing about grid power is we already have the infrastructure in place in places where people can afford EVs, and even when the power is taken from non-renewable sources, economies of scale mean that you're still getting good efficiency even with transmission and conversion losses.

Another model is already in place in the US, where higher end consumers install solar panels at home and use it to charge their EVs. Despite the high install cost, this allows them to run independent of the grid.

I can see a future for hydrogen possibly as an alternative form of storage for long distance vehicles, but that can be done just as easily and with less trouble with biomass-sourced fuels. Biological wastes rot and release methane, whatever we do... Might as well put it to use.

 

[Keef]

Where are you getting this electricity from?

We get ours from the same place as everybody else, which begs the question; where are you you getting this electricity from?

 

[Jubby]

Wherever we get electricity from now.

The great thing about grid power is we already have the infrastructure in place in places where people can afford EVs, and even when the power is taken from non-renewable sources, economies of scale mean that you're still getting good efficiency even with transmission and conversion losses.

Another model is already in place in the US, where higher end consumers install solar panels at home and use it to charge their EVs. Despite the high install cost, this allows them to run independent of the grid.

I can see a future for hydrogen possibly as an alternative form of storage for long distance vehicles, but that can be done just as easily and with less trouble with biomass-sourced fuels. Biological wastes rot and release methane, whatever we do... Might as well put it to use.

We get ours from the same place as everybody else, which begs the question; where are you you getting this electricity from?

Nobody is reading my posts in the context intended, as I've written many times; the future. I'm not talking about "today". Niky, Keef, hfs, and Azuremen, (among others) you seem much more informed about what's going to happen, so that's why I'm asking. I'm not trying to be sarcastic--- keep that in mind. Asking me where I'm getting it from isn't the point of my previosu question. Unlike many "defeated" people on this forum, I don't pout and groan in a corner. I'm moving on from my opinion, as I don't have the answer. I hope you'll have enough respect for me to do that and move on with me. I would like to be enlightened.

So, more pointedly, where are we going to get the massive amounts of electricity from when all fossil fuels are gone? Solar and wind aren't really grid options, are they?

 

[White & Nerdy]

I've been reading in here again, and I was just thinking... someone jumped on me for being in bad taste when I asked what would happen to Ebisu after the Fukushima Daiichi incedent...

You know what's worse?

Reccommending nuclear power again when that incedent isn't even a year in the past.

 

[homeforsummer]

You know what's worse?

Reccommending nuclear power again when that incedent isn't even a year in the past.

Congratulations: That's totally irrelevant.

"Nuclear power is bad Because Earthquake"

Err, no. Fukushima was a very rare, and very unlucky instance dictated by, among other things, it sitting right on top of a rather active fault line and being right by the coast on top of said active fault line.

Yes, nuclear power would be much better (and inherently safer, and with less waste) with fusion rather than fission technology, but nuclear is still infinitely better than coal.

I suspect following the nuclear backlash in Japan after Fukushima that the country will head towards renewable sources now - solar, wind, hydro-electric in particular (and let's face it - if anyone has the technology to make all that stuff work, it's Japan).

But much of the rest of the world would be better off using nuclear power to generate their electricity as it's much cleaner, and more efficient, than coal or gas.

So, more pointedly, where are we going to get the massive amounts of electricity from when all fossil fuels are gone? Solar and wind aren't really grid options, are they?

Not hydrogen, that's where. Since hydrogen requires power, and if we're not getting power from fossil fuels, then we can't produce hydrogen.

Solar and wind are options, but it depends where they are. Solar could well be a realistic option for somewhere like Spain, whose energy usage is relatively low, and sunlight is particularly high. I think they already have a few very large solar arrays powering some areas of the country.

Likewise, wind can be useful in some places. It's popular in some areas of the UK, and there are also arrays out at sea in some areas, where it's permanently windy.

It's probably not suitable on a massive scale, but it can't be discounted.

Other than that, nuclear is still a more viable option for electricity production.

I'm still not quite sure what you're spinning for though. There's no option we're looking at that would suddenly make hydrogen a viable fuel to power our cars/cities with. Far too much energy is required to "produce" it compared to the potential energy you can get out. It's barely suitable for cars, so it's hardly going to be suitable for cities.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I've been reading in here again, and I was just thinking... someone jumped on me for being in bad taste when I asked what would happen to Ebisu after the Fukushima Daiichi incedent...

You know what's worse?

Reccommending nuclear power again when that incedent isn't even a year in the past.

And the lesson, don't build on fault lines and too close to the sea. It really is a geographically specific danger and highlighted by the fact that 3 other plants were affected but suffered no serious damage or leak of radiation.

The alternative would be large scale hydro-electric like damming off all the major rivers in the area. Massive ecological damage regardless of how you do it, Norway and many others have managed it though. But it still has strict geographical requirements and can be disastrous should the dams fail in an earthquake.

 

[Jubby]

I'm still not quite sure what you're spinning for though.

I just tried, twice, to make a respectful attempt at ask you(plural) to explain to me what source is going to provide the trillions of megawatts we're going to need for anything, let alone the power for our battery powered cars. Sure, you haphazardly answered it. No, you didn't move on from my original point. Is it a dig at me for my opinion? After I've said twice that I'm moving away/moving on from my opinion, it starts to feel like you, among others, are just trying to be disrespectful and keep bringing up my "bad idea".

I fully recognize I might be wrong with my original assertion of hydrogen being an answer. I thought in a debate when one person concedes, the other side smiles and moves on. If anyone wants to continue stick out their proverbial tongue, laugh, point fingers, and continue to dig at me/my opinion, either simply don't or let's talk it out in a PM.

Speaking of my bad idea, since it's such a bad idea... move on(as I am), and give me a realistic idea of what can/will possibly happen at the home, city, country, worldwide levels without fossil fuels.

Less than 20% of the energy produced in the world is not fossil fuel based. If we remove all the energy produced by fossil fuels, we could power either China, the US, or the EU... not any combination, just one. Between 1990-2008 we barely outpaced production (% increase) in comparison to consumption (% increase). That's why I'm asking. Adding millions of car batteries to the grid draw isn't going to make this easier.

 

[homeforsummer]

I just tried, twice, to make a respectful attempt at ask you(plural) to explain to me what source is going to provide the trillions of megawatts we're going to need for anything, let alone the power for our battery powered cars. Sure, you haphazardly answered it. No, you didn't move on from my original point. Is it a dig at me for my opinion?

It's not a dig at you, but I'm not really sure how much info you're after. Partly because this is an automotive topic so the future of human energy is largely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're relating it directly to the car topic at hand.

I'm also not sure what answer you're really expecting. Renewable sources are limited for large energy requirements, so for the time being the answer is nuclear. Which has been mentioned several times. It's not really a big mystery, largely my guess is as good as yours.

But again: this thread is about alternative fuels for cars. If you'd like to discuss future energy, you'd be better off starting a thread in the opinions sub-forum.

I don't quite understand your point about finding all this extra energy for car batteries either. I'd think a much greater issue will be when the entire developing world starts being able to afford fridges, or TVs.

 

[Azuremen]

I've been reading in here again, and I was just thinking... someone jumped on me for being in bad taste when I asked what would happen to Ebisu after the Fukushima Daiichi incedent...

You know what's worse?

Reccommending nuclear power again when that incedent isn't even a year in the past.

I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Watched some episodes of MLP and learned about feelings, have we?

Speaking of my bad idea, since it's such a bad idea... move on(as I am), and give me a realistic idea of what can/will possibly happen at the home, city, country, worldwide levels without fossil fuels.

As people have said, many, many times, Nuclear power is likely the future, supplemented with Solar and Hydroelectric. This isn't a large mystery, though people seem to think Nuclear is doomed following Fukushima, which it hardly is as nations find themselves unable to run their grids.

Less than 20% of the energy produced in the world is not fossil fuel based. If we remove all the energy produced by fossil fuels, we could power either China, the US, or the EU... not any combination, just one. Between 1990-2008 we barely outpaced production (% increase) in comparison to consumption (% increase). That's why I'm asking. Adding millions of car batteries to the grid draw isn't going to make this easier.

And adding a home hydrogen generation would? It would require even more electric energy per mile driven than batteries would. Period. Simple physics says so.

Additionally, we are greatly increasing efficiency in many day to day applications, such as LED lighting for homes and increasingly efficient computers.

People have attempted to answer your questions, many times now, but you seem to think they aren't all and now are thinking its all some dig at you.

A fusion powered grid is the future for most of the world. There is no realistic alternative at the moment, despite what all the tree-huggers will tell you.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Watched some episodes of MLP and learned about feelings, have we?

Let's see...

Mondo radiation leak, may have contaminated who knows how much land. That land may have to be trodden infrequently and with gas mask in place for an unknown amount of time.

It'll kill the seafood industry there.

It'll kill the seafood industry here (or, rather, kill its customers, though the government swears those lesions on seals and walruses are a coincidence/from something else. Soon, I'm sure, our world famous King crab will show up contaminated... and by then who knows how many people will have suffered health problems from it)

In addition to all the death, destroyed homes, and destroyed facilities/property.

Conclusion?

"Nukez r totally safe! Hay guise, we should totally build more nuclear plants! Radiation 4eva! Lets not learn from Fukushima at all!"

Cold fusion seems to be an impossibility so far, and our current system is brutal when something does eventually go wrong. Which it will. No matter how much you try to engineer for disasters, one will eventually come along that's way worse than you ever could have planned or prepared for.

 

[Jubby]

It's not a dig at you, but I'm not really sure how much info you're after. Partly because this is an automotive topic so the future of human energy is largely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're relating it directly to the car topic at hand.

I'm also not sure what answer you're really expecting. Renewable sources are limited for large energy requirements, so for the time being the answer is nuclear. Which has been mentioned several times. It's not really a big mystery, largely my guess is as good as yours.

But again: this thread is about alternative fuels for cars.

Thank you, I appreciate your candor. I have no expectations for an answer. I want to see if someone comes up with something or has knowledge of something and apply it with practicality. Any answer will do to discuss its potential merits. I'll try and keep it pointed to cars, but some answers require grid discussion as their perspective includes it(example below).

As people have said, many, many times, Nuclear power is likely the future, supplemented with Solar and Hydroelectric. This isn't a large mystery, though people seem to think Nuclear is doomed following Fukushima, which it hardly is as nations find themselves unable to run their grids.

People have attempted to answer your questions, many times now, but you seem to think they aren't all and now are thinking its all some dig at you.

A fusion powered grid is the future for most of the world. There is no realistic alternative at the moment, despite what all the tree-huggers will tell you.

I agree that fusion is the longest term solution. Unfortunately any option is more realistic in application than fusion at this point.

You've said battery powered cars are the solution, but I'm curious where the power that goes to the batteries come from, because I don't think the current grid today can take care of it. You do realize the massive amounts of energy from the grid it will take for every vehicle to be powered by EV technology, right? Could the current grid take that if we were to switch over right now?

 

[Keef]

Fact is, solar and wind will have to become more common. About half of the US's power production comes from coal right now. Estimates vary widely about how long reserves will last, but 50 years is a safe bet. Geo-thermal energy is viable in some areas (humorously, Yellowstone is probably the most viable geo-thermal site in the entire country but is off-limits for development). The United States also has useful oil reserves that are mostly off limits to development because of government regulation. Our petroleum refining capacity is severely limited because of government environmental regulation - more refining capacity could lead to lower prices for all types of petroleum fuels. Offshore wind farms are also viable in many areas of our country, but again, environmental regulations often hamper their development. Nuclear power is a perfectly good option in stable parts of the country, but again, environmental regulation and public percentage are destructive to any future nuclear development in this country.

There are numerous options that will become commercially viable in the near future, probably within a couple decades, and there are also existing reserves that have yet to be tapped, in many cases because they are in environmentally protected areas. One fact that will remain is that elemental hydrogen is exceedingly rare on our planet, leaving us to produce it by using fuels that are already useful in themselves. Unless it becomes useful in some sort of nuclear fusion technology, development will be slow because it isn't a viable fuel for wide-ranging use. It burns, and anything that burns is fair game, but it's day will probably be far in the future.

An idea I've always liked: Capturing lightning energy in vast capacitor arrays. Unimaginable energy is produced by violent thunderstorms. If we could harness that we'd be set for life.

 

[Dennisch]

An idea I've always liked: Capturing lightning energy in vast capacitor arrays. Unimaginable energy is produced by violent thunderstorms. If we could harness that we'd be set for life.

A friend of mine wrote a paper about that at school, his teacher showed it to his brother,who worked at Shell, he got an invitation letter from Shell to come and share his work and thoughts, but he didn't go because he was too drunk.

The world missed a great opportunity that day.

Edit: I may go ask if he still has that paper.

 

[Jubby]

What do you guys think about using tidal forces? Such as turbines in fast moving rivers and especially oceans.

 

[Keef]

What do you guys think about using tidal forces? Such as turbines in fast moving rivers and especially oceans.

Hydro-electric production on rivers is already very common here. It can be a problem though because our most powerful rivers have high shipping traffic. Harnessing offshore tidal forces to produce power is not a new idea. One aspect holding it back is rather large environmental impact.

Offshore wind production has been done in Europe and it seems to work well. But that's only useful for coastal areas - the UK is so small it's virtually all a coastal area. That sort of production would be useless to the interior of the US.

 

[Azuremen]

"Nukez r totally safe! Hay guise, we should totally build more nuclear plants! Radiation 4eva! Lets not learn from Fukushima at all!"

Your ignorance is, as always, profound and amazing. Fukushima is the most severe nuclear incident since Chernobyl, which was in the 80's. And it is still no where near as bad as the media would like you to believe. Nuclear power is completely fine in geostable locations, such as the Midwest and the middle of Russia. The lesson here is don't built a plant on a massive fault line spitting distance from the ocean.

And I'm curious what you think the alternative is?

Oh and by the way, fusion doesn't have to be "cold" to be safe, as the input is hydrogen and the output is helium. Dangerous stuff, that.

I agree that fusion is the longest term solution. Unfortunately any option is more realistic in application than fusion at this point.

For now? Fission, plan and simple.

You've said battery powered cars are the solution, but I'm curious where the power that goes to the batteries come from, because I don't think the current grid today can take care of it. You do realize the massive amounts of energy from the grid it will take for every vehicle to be powered by EV technology, right? Could the current grid take that if we were to switch over right now?

Could the grid take that if we switched over the hydrogen right now?

No. Hydrogen is worse for the grid than batteries. Also plan and simple.

I'm not talking about a solution we can have tomorrow, but more like 10 to 20 years down the road when fossil fuels are truly stupid expensive and we've had time to lay the ground work for changing over proper.

 

[ExigeEvan]

What do you guys think about using tidal forces? Such as turbines in fast moving rivers and especially oceans.

Sea-bed turbines are a compromise, what you really want is a barrage across the tidal stream so you can control the flow much easier and harness all the energy.

The issue is that a tidal barge causes a lot more environmental damage.

A fair compromise is a tidal lagoon. You create small man made lagoons out in the estuary that trap water at high tide and allow you to control the flow out while also harnessing the flow in.

This is what they've proposed in my area,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

 

[homeforsummer]

You've said battery powered cars are the solution, but I'm curious where the power that goes to the batteries come from, because I don't think the current grid today can take care of it. You do realize the massive amounts of energy from the grid it will take for every vehicle to be powered by EV technology, right? Could the current grid take that if we were to switch over right now?

Probably not if we all switched at once, but there's zero risk of that.

You're also massively overstating the draw of current for an electric car. If I recall correctly, it'd be a bit like having a plasma TV on all the time. Since most people who currently own electric cars charge overnight, when they're sleeping and when all their other electronic devices are off, it doesn't really point towards a big energy overload.

"Nukez r totally safe! Hay guise, we should totally build more nuclear plants! Radiation 4eva! Lets not learn from Fukushima at all!"

Sorry, you must have missed this. But to save me typing it all out again:

Congratulations: That's totally irrelevant.

"Nuclear power is bad Because Earthquake"

Err, no. Fukushima was a very rare, and very unlucky instance dictated by, among other things, it sitting right on top of a rather active fault line and being right by the coast on top of said active fault line.

Yes, nuclear power would be much better (and inherently safer, and with less waste) with fusion rather than fission technology, but nuclear is still infinitely better than coal.

I suspect following the nuclear backlash in Japan after Fukushima that the country will head towards renewable sources now - solar, wind, hydro-electric in particular (and let's face it - if anyone has the technology to make all that stuff work, it's Japan).

But much of the rest of the world would be better off using nuclear power to generate their electricity as it's much cleaner, and more efficient, than coal or gas.

Building another nuclear power plant on the same site as Fukushima: Bad idea.

Building another nuclear power plant on a different, non-tectonic fault line: No more dangerous than any of the thousands of other nuclear plants across the globe.

As before: No source of energy is perfect. Thousands of people die early from having worked in coal mines and inhaled coal dust half their lives. Suspect the total death toll is significantly higher than that of nuclear. Or how about banning natural gas/gasoline/diesel because every decade we have a massive environmental disaster when some careless bugger releases millions of gallons of crude into the oceans somehow?

Energy production isn't perfect. That's why we search for improvements.

Nuclear fission: Not perfect. But despite Fukushima, safer than ever, and more efficient than coal or gas.

 

[niky]

Tidal and hydroelectric are the easiest to implement solutions that have the capacity to generate a good amount of power. Hydroelectric dams are not much harder to maintain than coal and oil plants... tidal plants... depends. Some of the more innovative solutions I've seen suffer from ease-of-maintenance issues... though tidal bore plants, which are similar to traditional hydroelectric, should be relatively low cost.

We might just have to suck up the environmental costs... or be prepared to transplant a lot of habitats if we start using these on a wider scale.

Wind is a nightmare. Expensive installations for little gain. Fickle. Turbines and blades fail due to the stresses. And wind doesn't scale up very well at all.

Solar is fickle, and large scale solar projects are problematic. The best implementation is probably what's happening now in the US... Solar is installed in homes and the power goes back to the grid. This way, a solar array doesn't take up a whole lot of empty space that could be used for something else. And the end users will partially foot the bill, instead of the government having to enact massive subsidies. But panel efficiencies are still too low and prices still too high. Watch out, though... Chinese solar cells are getting cheaper and cheaper. This is part of why Solyndra went under.

Nuclear is the easiest and safest bet. Yes, when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong. And aside from the earthquake risk, Fukushima wasn't actually all that safe compared to more modern plants, as revealed in the months that followed.

Yet, the disaster is nothing compared to the global concern caused by widespread coal burning. How many people died because of Fukushima? None yet. How many have died because of health problems caused by coal? Estimates are ten thousand or more per year.

Nuclear Fission is only a stopgap solution, mind you. Our supply of uranium won't last past the next hundred years... thorium can fill in after that, but until we get a usable nuclear fusion plant, we still have a massive problem on our hands when the radioactives run out.

----

Errh... as homeforsummer has stated, this is way beyond the scope of this thread. While the above sources may power our transportation grid via proxy... electric trains and public electric transport... they still don't answer how personal transport will be fueled. It may be that a lot of vehicles will go electric... maybe to lessen battery dependence, we'll have electric highways, where you can draw power from an overhead wire like a train or bumper car, or from inductive charging through the street itself (terribly expensive, though). I still don't see these electric vehicles replacing traditional long-distance capable cars unless a battery breakthrough occurs. And unlike liquid fueled cars, you can't carry extra tanks to top off the batteries... you have to carry extra batteries... which is an added cost.

Bio-fuels will definitely help. Waste-diesel and methane gas from digesters have the potential to run vehicles (in fact, digester gas is used as tractor fuel in some poorer parts of the world), but the volume of fuel we can get from these sources won't cover our entire fleet needs. Farmed biofuels are always going to be a political issue, and despite not competing straight with food for land, they compete with food crops for investment. Simply... since biofuels sell for so much thanks to government "green" subsidies, it's a counter-incentive for farmers and investors to farm food crops.

Algae and cellulosic bio-fuels are turning into bio-fuel's equivalent to hydrogen fusion. Always right around the corner, but never commercially ready.

Hydrogen? (well... it has to be covered) It has its uses in certain instances, but on the automotive level, it seems like it won't ever be mainstream. If we're looking for something to act as a stable, safe and easy to produce range extender for electric vehicles, it is likely this will be low pressure digester methane or biodiesel/waste oil. And with biodiesel, you have the added bonus that the fuel won't ever explode in an accident, and will be very hard to set alight in a fire compared to hydrogen, gasoline, methane, propane, alcohol or even batteries.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Your ignorance is, as always, profound and amazing. Fukushima is the most severe nuclear incident since Chernobyl, which was in the 80's. And it is still no where near as bad as the media would like you to believe. Nuclear power is completely fine in geostable locations, such as the Midwest

There's a reason they call that place (or parts of it) "Tornado Alley". Sure, you could probaby build a wind proof plant... but you better make sure nothing EVER gets out or the wind will pick it up and carry it off to who knows where. And if the plant blows, the wind will make everything many times worse. Speaking of which, the Chernobyl incedent wasn't caused by any unavoidable natural disaster, but by a botched emergency-procedure test. Of all the possible disasters to design around, simple mistakes would probably be the hardest.

Building another nuclear power plant on a different, non-tectonic fault line: No more dangerous than any of the thousands of other nuclear plants across the globe.

That's the thing - no more dangerous than any other nuclear plant. Which means someone is eventually going to do something stupid and blow the whole thing sky high, or there'll be a calamity no engineer could have predicted/designed for, or some terrorist will try to sabotage it, or there'll be a war and the plant will be bombed. All of these could require permanent evacuation of the affected area.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's the thing - no more dangerous than any other nuclear plant. Which means someone is eventually going to do something stupid and blow the whole thing sky high, or there'll be a calamity no engineer could have predicted/designed for, or some terrorist will try to sabotage it, or there'll be a war and the plant will be bombed. All of these could require permanent evacuation of the affected area.

Most modern plants are largely automated. As Niky already pointed out, Fukushima was quite an old design. The more you remove the human element, the safer they get. Like aircraft.

And I made a typo anyway. I put "no more dangerous than any other nuclear plant", when really I meant "any other power plant". Put "gas power plant accients" into Google and look how many results come up. And then consider the aforementioned number of deaths due to coal (and the research that suggests coal dust is more radioactive than nuclear waste).

 

[Crispy]

Do you think that Hydrogen Powered cars, either through Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Hydrogen-Internal-Combustion-Engine, (HICE) will become the car of the future? Honestly, I truly can. Electric cars powered by batteries that need to be charged don't seem like a good investment for a while, and certainly won't cut down on pollution very much considering that you get your electricity often times from a coal plant.

Many manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon. Recently Ford, Daimler, and Nissan announced plans to create a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car.I have a feeling we will start to see many more stories like this pop up as gas prices rise higher and higher, and pollution levels increase. What do you think?

 

[Grayfox]

Well Honda have their FCX Clarity

Looks nice.