The question is whether fusion can make a large contribution to the 21st century or is a 22nd-century solution. “A decade ago some scientists questioned whether fusion was possible, even in the lab,” says David E. Baldwin, who as head of the energy group at General Atomics oversees the largest fusion reactor in the U.S., the DIII-D. But the past 20 years have seen dramatic improvements in tokamaks, machines that use giant electromagnetic coils to confine the ionized fuel within a doughnut-shaped chamber as it heats the plasma to more than 100 million degrees Celsius.
“We now know that fusion will work,” Baldwin says. “The question is whether it is economically practical”—and if so, how quickly fusion could move from its current experimental form into large-scale commercial reactors. “Even with a crash program,” he says, “I think we would need 25 to 30 years” to develop such a design.
So far political leaders have chosen to push fusion along much more slowly. Nearly 20 years after it was first proposed, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is only now nearing final approval. If construction begins on schedule next year, the $10-billion reactor should begin operation in southeastern France in 2016.
Meanwhile an intermediate generation of tokamaks now nearing completion in India, China and Korea will test whether coils made of superconducting materials can swirl the burning plasma within its magnetic bottle for minutes at a time. Current reactors manage a few dozen seconds at best before their power supplies give out.
ITER aims for three principal goals. First it must demonstrate that a large tokamak can control the fusion of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium into helium long enough to generate 10 times the energy it consumes. A secondary aim is to test ways to use the high-speed neutrons created by the reaction to breed tritium fuel—for example, by shooting them into a surrounding blanket of lithium. The third goal is to integrate the wide range of technologies needed for a commercial fusion plant.
If ITER succeeds, it will not add a single watt to the grid. But it will carry fusion past a milestone that nuclear fission energy reached in 1942, when Enrico Fermi oversaw the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Fission reactors were powering submarines 11 years later. Fusion is an incomparably harder problem, however, and some veterans in the field predict that 20 to 30 years of experiments with ITER will be needed to refine designs for a production plant.
Najmabadi is more optimistic. He leads a working group that has already produced three rough designs for commercial fusion reactors. The latest, called ARIES-AT, would have a more compact footprint—and thus a lower capital cost—than ITER. The ARIES-AT machine would produce 1,000 megawatts at a price of roughly five cents per kilowatt-hour, competitive with today’s oil- and gas-fired plants. If work on a commercial plant began in parallel with ITER, rather than decades after it goes online, fusion might be ready to scale up for production by midcentury, Najmabadi argues.
Fusion would be even more cost-competitive, Hoffert suggests, if the fast neutrons produced by tokamaks were used to transmute thorium (which is relatively abundant) into uranium (which may be scarce 50 years hence) to use as fuel in nuclear fission plants. “Fusion advocates don’t want to sully its clean image,” Hoffert observes, “but fusion-fission hybrids may be the way to go.”
2. High-Altitude Wind -- Reality Factor: 4*
The most energetic gales soar far over the tops of today’s turbines. New designs would rise higher—perhaps even to the jet stream
Wind is solar energy in motion. About 0.5 percent of the sunlight entering the atmosphere is transmuted into the kinetic energy of air: a mere 1.7 watts, on average, in the atmospheric column above every square meter of the earth. Fortunately, that energy is not distributed evenly but concentrated into strong currents. Unfortunately, the largest, most powerful and most consistent currents are all at high altitude. Hoffert estimates that roughly two thirds of the total wind energy on this planet resides in the upper troposphere, beyond the reach of today’s wind farms.
See what we're tweeting about
61 Comments
Add CommentI didn't see any mention of Australia's Solar Tower technology (not "mirrors aimed at a tower that has a boiler at the top", but instead a design that makes use of heat, pressure, and temperature differentials at the bottom and top of a very tall hollow tower).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a technology that seems to be significantly under appreciated, yet could be an amazing producer of electricity. I also have thoughts about variations of it that could allow it to be used on non-plains terrain.
The other one I don't see here is Thermal Depolymerization, which looks promising as well. And seems to be on the verge of practical commercialization.
Another energy tower idea incorporates heat pumps and solar thermal panels to store summer heat in boreholes. The energy tower generates electricity in the summer with updrafts and in winter by down drafts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inventors are promoting this as an open source project.
http://energytower.org/
Citation, please. Outside of conservative political groups, oil consortiums and crackpot whackos, I can't find documentation to support your claims. Science isn't you making conflicting claims without a shred of evidence...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see any comment regarding fusion using high powered lasers which might very well leave the alternative approach in the dust if it works and this summer we will know for sure if they succeeded in this regard...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of using the clean coal or oil why are we not trying to harness the ice crystals whose enormous quantities equal 2x the worlds coal and oil? If, we do not use it for a positive source. The earth quakes could cause a run away train on this global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all of the dialogue concerning alternative energy sources I almost never hear any discussion about conservation. These new technologies hold promise for the future but conservation needs to be part of the solution. Can we really expect for a growing population to drive home to a 3000 square foot house 60 miles a day in a 3 ton SUV? No matter what the source of energy, consumption on this scale will be consuming precious resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy is like health; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Gee no articles on cold fusion- maybe the carbon fools can not adjust to life without guilt. Some, who would like you to live in the dark and the cold, because we have lived too well and we must be punished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis energy concept would not be controlable by governments so it will be an orphan project- thankyou US Navy.
Congratulations on this very extensive description of alternative energies. I agree with most of the analysis results. Here some comments on subjects where I disagree:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear fusion
In you comments you state that solar energy is the technology which has the least success of all as it only covers 0.038% of all used energy on earth. The percentage of fusion power is a big 0 and if we compare the scientific effort put into this energy it is looks even worse for the effort result ratio. The fact that even the advocates of nuclear fusion talk about waiting an additional 25 to 30 years makes this technology by far the worst by any measures. The 3* value is overly optimistic and maybe biased. In contrast to what nuclear fusion supporters want the public to believe, current technologies are far from being clean. The high temperature plasma induces radioactivity into surrounding material, i.e. the walls etc of the reactor. This leads to radioactive waste and of course is a waste of material, i.e. not very ecological. I dare to question the right of nuclear fusion on the list of alternative energies.
Solar energy and nanotechnology
I believe that solar energy usage is on an exponential growth path which means that in 25 to 30 years from now its percentage of global energy needs satisfaction will be significant. It has been forecasted that the growth might even be 50% per year on average for some years to come. This leads to 100% of todays energy needs already in 20 years. Even a smaller percentage like 25 leads to about 25% coverage of todays energy usage. This would be the moment when nuclear fusion would be getting away from 0 to a very small figure.
Space based solar energy
This may be more achievable than it currently seems. The reason I believe so it that I think the space elevator or similar technology will make it very much cheaper to build energy platforms into space and this together with advances via nanotechnology will enable this earlier and in bigger scale than it may seem today.
Scifi technologies
In my opinion nuclear fusion only has a chance to play a big role if we succeed to build much smaller and cooler fusion reactors than what is regarded now. I think this is at the moment science fiction but cannot be completely ruled out.
Kind regards
Rolf B?
Good place to get professional information about nuclear energy is www.world-nuclear.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenmark and Germany have put 10 years huge amount of taxpayer and consumer money to support wind energy. Results are bad, they produce still about 80-99% of their energy with coal, killing people with sootparticles.
See critics at www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
See critical views:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
Professional site for nuclear energy:
www.world-nuclear.org
Thermoacoustic generators convert heat into electric current. As an example solar heat to electrical energy the conversation efficiency is about 40%. Conversion cells can even be produced using microchip production methods. Why does this technology get no coverage from Scientific American? Has it been reviewed and failed the test or is it just being ignored? Is this a viable technology or is it not? This is not the first time I have putt his question to Scientific American but I too seem to have been ignored as I am yet to receive a response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThermoacoustic generators convert heat into electric current. As an example solar heat to electrical energy the conversation efficiency is about 40%. Conversion cells can even be produced using microchip production methods. Why does this technology get no coverage from Scientific American? Has it been reviewed and failed the test or is it just being ignored? This is not the first time I have putt his question to Scientific American but I too seem to have been ignored as I am yet to receive a response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost scientists agree the the best energy is the energy you don't use. Energy efficiency is the only way to get pollution levels down and to ensure durable development using non-carbon sources. Another route is to pyrolyse hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, harnessing the hydrogen and sequestering the carbon. But this won't get off the ground without more investment. See www.EPRIDA.com for the economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTidal energy has a non negligible side effect: it slows down the speed of the Earth turns, thus making the day and nught very little, but mensurably longer. They are probably to be banned in the medium-long term. Regards
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHerndon 20170 VA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDt 22 March 2009
Dear Sir,
Using the approach outlined below transportation is possible at speeds of 210 mph from city to city. Retooled cars/trucks on gravity-powered roads allow for transportation without fossil fuels and transport cargo from any point to any point at 60-mph. Existing metro rail can be powered by gravity doing away the electrical traction.
Detailed specification in US Patent application number: 12184151 dated 07/31/2008 provides more information regarding the "Gravity Powered Rail, Road and Runways transportation systems".
(www.atrilab.com)
The existing roads and rail infrastructure can be primarily powered by gravity attaining speeds of 60 mph.
The implications are gravitational force can provide in case of USA:
1. 360 KMPH rail based intercity transportation saving 87% of electrical energy
2. Urban metros, even existing ones can save 97% of electrical energy
3. Cargo can be moved from any point to any point in USA with gravity power, saving 97% of energy from fossil fuels
4. USA can stop importing 8m barrels of oil daily and stop 3.5b tons of carbon emissions per annum
Comparison of energy requirements In Kwh/1000 seat.km
Current Systems Gravity Power Systems
Inter-city trains 61.11 6
High Speed Trains 147.22 55
The projects for USA would need investment of $450 billion, but no subsidy from the government, because they generate 30 to 40% cash surpluses. They generate also close to one million jobs. Eternal free gravity force can kick start projects in all the states for transportation infrastructure to be futuristic, totally powered by gravitational force. Within four years, we can complete the commercial implementation and get benefits, without any need for waiting for research to be completed.
India can have Rs 50,000 cr projects in private sector linking cities for cargo movement and intra-city travel too-- all financially viable , to save more than 60% of oil imports, using the Gravity Powered transportation systems.
In Africa the continent can have very economic transportation systems and deserts of mid-east countries can have all weather protected from sand dunes transportation systems.
We need a paradigm shift in transportation scene with "green" energy from Newton's gravity and the game changer solution is ready for implementation.
What we need is courage and vision of a few enabled individuals for a country to benefit economically.
B. Rajaram M.Tech., FIE.,FNAE., IRSE.,AMASCE
Inventor Anti-collision/ Skybus Technologies, Former MD Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.,
Member ITER-India Board Dept Atomic Energy Govt.of India
In USA 1 703 796 0225 Mobile 1 703 835 9025 and 1 571 345 5048
Res: 834 Spring Knoll Dr HERNDON VA 20170 USAURL: www.atrilab.comEinstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”
DIRECTOR Atri Knowledge Embedded Infrastructure Lab.(P) Ltd., Flat 205, 2-2-15 , B9, D.D. Colony Hyderabad 500007 http://rajaram.bojji.googlepages.com/bojjirajaram
Concept wise neither electric car nor regenerative braking are new. But what TOYOTA has done in Prius is packaging a small IC engine and Ni-Mh battery & a small traction motor in an acceptable way for the customer. A small engine gives better mileage and this coupled with regenerative braking gives additional mileage making the vehicle most fuel efficient. Ever since the first electric car the need for high energy density battery was felt to make it viable alternative to IC engine powered vehicles. Ni-Mh battery development has made Prius successful. Li-ion batteries will take the hybrid vehicles to a higher level. Perhaps ultracapacitor in combination with moderately powered engine may give the same mileage as a hybrid. The bigger question with electric vehicles is how to dispose off the used batteries without affecting environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomewhat surprised to see no mention of lunar solar power, studied in considerable detail by D.R. Criswell, Univ. of Houston (see e.g. The Industrial Physicist, April/May 2002, p.12 and references therein). This proposal merits serious consideration, and should not be dismissed as "moonshine".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm ran an entire article a while back describing the exciting possibilities of good old fashioned nuclear fission when coupled with new fuel rod technologies that promise vastly improved energy efficiencies with sensible and manageable waste a the end of the chain. What happened that we saw no further mention of it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarth has only 6% the carbon in the air it had when animals started walking the Earth. If you succeed in dropping CO2 down to about 150ppm, you effectively will have killed most plant life on Earth. You apparently haven't thought this through. With the increase from 250 to 385ppm since the industrial revolution, the CO2 has increased agricultural production over 30%. IF you succeed in getting atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels, you WILL lose that 30+% production gain. You WILL cause global starvation. CO2 is a finite resource that nature has been burying underground for 540 million years. Our 3rd atmosphere was coming to an end probably in about 10 million years if we hadn't started taking that sequested carbon out of the ground and pumping it back into the air. Mankind inadvertantly has benefited all plants on Earth with the absolutely critical CO2. Why aren't you writing about that? Is it because it doesn't fit your political agenda?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, none of proposals mentioned in the article will even come close to complying with the specifications and warnings of professor James Hanson, NASA’s chief climate scientist, and his colleagues at the National Academy of Sciences, who have stated that the climate change problems are much worse than previously thought, and as such, fossil fuels need to be phased-out within 10 years or humanity will pass a tipping-point of no return, which will destabilize the climate to such an extent that the earth’s primary food production systems, which already in serious trouble, will fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal ocean ecosystems are already more than 90% dead from pollution and overfishing, and the frogs, bats and bees are already disappearing, which underscores the sense of urgency to shift to a Solar Hydrogen Economy with wartime-speed. Such a “transition of substance” was proposed in 1984 by Harry Braun, a technical analyst, author and principal investigator of the Phoenix Project Foundation, who is also an advisory board member of the international association for hydrogen energy, which has over 2,500 Ph.D.-level chemists and engineers as members from over 45 countries. Although the editors at Scientific American have refused to publish Braun’s work, it has been recently published in an international Chemical Engineering and Industry Journal that is posted on the PhoenixProjectFoundation.US website.
Braun’s Phoenix Project plan to implement a Solar Hydrogen Economy over a 5-year period avoids any R&D by simply mass-producing 5 million 2 megawatt state-of-the-art wind-powered hydrogen production systems that are no more difficult to manufacture than 15 million automobile that are sold in the U.S. each year. It is why these systems could have been mass-produced in the 1920s. These 5 million units would not just displace imported oil, but all of the fossil and nuclear fuels that are now used in the U.S., and the estimated $5 trillion in capital costs would then generate over $1 trillion annually in new wealth for many decades -- unlike the over $5 trillion that has already been lost on bailing out bankrupt bankers and their toxic loans.
And rather than waiting for fuel cells or other new electric vehicles, Braun’s plan would simply have all of the existing fleet of 250 million automotive vehicles (including aircraft) modified so they will be able to use hydrogen or gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels interchangeably. An additional 15 million wind systems would then be able to displace fossil and nuclear fuels worldwide.
A lot of these ideas sound like possibilities, but I'm a low tech type. I like to think I 'invented' a lower-tech version of high altitude wind power than described above, about thirty years ago. But I never got around to developing, or patenting it, so pay attention and get rich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above version must support an electric generator, not usually a light item, at high altitude. It also must necessarily be tethered to the ground, with a long two-wire cable to transmit electric power, unless one intends some sort of electromagnetic transmission.
My version would generate the electric power on the ground. The simplest would involve two kites, probably close together. Each would have two lines, a main flying line and a lighter line to control the pitch or "angle of attack". One kite would be in power mode, at a steep pitch, pulling the lines out with much greater force, while the other was in glide mode, being pulled back in. Both lines would go around pulleys, the flying lines' pulleys attached to a gear train to a generator.
My original design had the lines from each kite connected to the other kite, so the one in power mode would pull the gliding kite back in to a minimum altitude. Then a simple mechanism would reverse the relative positions of the two lines, therefore the pitch of each kite, therefore the mode of each. It would also add an extra gear to the power train, so that the generator would turn the same direction though the movement of kites and lines switched directions. Several pairs of kites would be needed in one area to smooth out the momentary drops in power when each pair switched modes, and means to prevent several pair from switching at the same time.
A later design has each kite connected to its own generator, feeding power to the grid half the time, as long as pairs can signal each other when to switch modes.
No doubt there would be unexpected complications, and I'd be glad to help work them out. Send questions to danrob@efn.org.
Near-Zero CO2 Plan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines.
The lighting can be zero rated by building Buxton Geothermal Power Stations (BGTGs) which use the heat of the earth at depth by drilling ten kilometre deep holes.
The heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings, which can prevent heat leaks, on the walls and ceilings of all premises.
Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use BGTG electricity.
The carbon footprints of long range transport can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed permanently with water using an ultrasonic dibber.
Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of BGTG electricity.
Biochar production can make up any shortfall.
Mental illness costs the UK �100 billion per year, enough for the plan. The Kadir-Buxton Method can cure the ill in thirty seconds for free.
I have read your article on the 8 promising energy technologies with obvious disgust. A couple of them belong with the micky mouse category and do not deserve a paragraph of discussion. The big one that was missed in this discussion is geothermal. Take your heads out of you B__ts. As in the 1980's when the further sack of the nations and the citizens pocketbooks was stopped, too many people consider "nuclear" as a viable option. This isn't about power--it's about money. Geothermal is cheap and it isn't dangerous. We, in America, have an extremely abundant source of Geothermal areas. Why isn't it being developed more? I suspect it doesn't cost enough for the fleecers to bother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease email me at dgjohnsonstein@yahoo.com
Don
Enter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Blah blasabaYour Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article from Gibbs. Almost as good as "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. Bless their souls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad you like the Prius so much. I have the next best thing: a Honda Civic Hybrid. You might notice the same thing I did - the huge number of gasoline stations you pass before you have to refill!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts disappointing to see how little space and comment concerms wave energy. Granted, fusion is the Holy Grail, but wave power should not be ignored just because it hasn't yet been commercialised. Apart from the quantum of power available, wave energy also offers far greater consistency and predictability than wind. There are many who think that eventually the capital costs of wave power will be particularly competitive: coupled with pumped storage on a large scale this could be an important part of energy solutions. Wave energy leading to stored Hydrogen through electrolysis is also a runner. Some of us involved in this sector www.jospa.ie are experiencing exciting progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi want to make a turbine of small size around 30cm diameter to generate a power out put of 6volts and 0.6 amp for some particular purpose.so how i can go for selection of fan or turbine for this.and want to know which type of fan or turbines are at these range of sizes.
I think he was referring to the NCDC Temperature Anomalies Chart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg
If you look at the last 10 years of the chart 1998 is the peak and it has dropped off. It is during a period of unmatched CO2 . I look at the whole chart and notice the temperature variance over 150 years is 1 degree celsius. Solar variations explain half of this variance. This one degree is saving us from growing glaciers that would have TIPPED us into an end to the interglacial period of our CURRENT ice age.
A historical and economical approach is used in the following article.
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/HouseTestimony.html
I'm disappointed that SA is so sloppy in it's use of units. On the piece about fusion " A fusion plant could extract a gigawatt from just a few grams per day" - so what is that supposed to mean. Gigawatt is a term for 10 to the power nine watts and is a word for POWER, not energy. To make sense of it the gigawatt must be followed by some measure of time ( second, minute hour) Does he mean that the plant could produce 24 gigawatt hours per day, or what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpen source - yes - that'd be it. But whose money ? (not mine, even if I had any !)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy usage will have to be "capped" or rationed, otherwise "developers" will simply continue to gobble-up the Earth, creating a new kind of "monocultural Zoo" containing only one species - "Nuclear-powered WallMart Man". All other Life will be available only in digital format, as a computer game. What's the hassle !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe energy crisis is only the beginning of The Crisis. Eventually we will run out of room on the planet for all us people. Then what? If every couple had only one kid we could cut our consumption/pollution in half every generation (20-25 years), reduce the burden on the planet and buy ourselves more time to develop alt energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the system of tapping power out of the aether, like a Flying Saucer does and what was probably used by Tesla for his Pierce Arrow Car in 1931 is still going to be the top favourite in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesla did not want to divulge how it worked, as he realized that the system could be used to power homes too. The investors of the Niagara Falls Power Plant, Pierpont Morgan and Rockefeller, would have had him killed.
He did not take a Patent out. I found out how a Flying Saucer works and patented it. The difficulty is getting funding to develop the over 1000 applications. A Flying Saucer is a funny subject. High voltages are used in the units.
The problem of energy and ecology is decided by two innovative aspects. 1. reliable concept of process of extraction of energy from a matter. 2. application of eternal gravity force in the рпоцессе receipts of energy. Such innovative technology for us is created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem of energy and ecology is decided by two innovative aspects. 1. reliable concept of process of extraction of energy from a matter. 2. application of eternal gravity force in the рпоцессе receipts of energy. Such innovative technology for us is created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of turbines and fans, in a responce to rugada meghanath questions>it depends on whether your using fluid or gas as they have different properties.There has been much research done on both.You need only look it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisВ энергетике нужно отойти от стереотипов неандертальцев и понять природные принципы существования и способов извлечения енергии.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisНельзя напрямую сжигать углеводороды и углерод. Это нужно делать через предварительное преобразование. Тогда легко извлекать энергию и без загрязнения среды. Мы получили такие замечательные результаты.
In energy it is needed to step back from the stereotypes of neanderthal men and understand natural principles of existence and methods of extraction of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is impossible straight to burn hydrocarbons and carbon. It needs to be done through preliminary transformation. Then easily to extract energy without contamination of environment. We got such remarkable results.
OK, one more (perhaps) infeasible suggestion, but perhaps not as infeasible as some:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(and forgive me if this has already been proposed in detail and found wanting.)
My region of CA used to be a deep ocean basin where a vast thickness of diatoms accumulated and took with them a small fraction of their stored nutrients to an anaerobic bottom. From thick layers of diatomaceous shale, petroleum later formed (Monterey Formation).
In this unplanned and inefficient way of Nature, diatoms provided the source material for future liquid energy because of some of their very fortuitous characteristics.
Because they do not build a cell wall of cellulose, but use the mineral SiO2, they do not have to "waste" time and energy in producing a "waste" product and they can reproduce faster than any other photosynthesizing organism (that I know of). The other thing that should be of special interest to today's petroleum refining and diesel engine technologists is the fact that diatoms store their nutrients in the form of lipids, not in sugars. These lipids should make a great feed-stock for existing technology refineries and directly usable in diesel engines. Finally, diatoms grow wonderfully in salt and brackish waters with atmospheric CO2 as their source of carbon.
Imagine for a moment large "farms" covering parts of the Sahara or other uninhabited deserts. These "farms" would consist of dozens of meters of closed glass pipes filled with aerated seawater and growing diatoms. The diatoms would grow very fast and would be constantly harvested. Through simple, on-site centrifugal machinery, the lipids would be separated from the diatom's SiO2 tests and the finely divided SiO2 recycled. A pipeline matrix, a rail service or a fleet of tanker trucks could transport the harvested lipids from the remote "farms" to ports for worldwide distribution.
"Farms" of this sort would not take up existing agricultural spaces, would have no impact on a region's fresh water supply and would be entirely carbon neutral. In addition, the technologies and materials involved would be extremely low-tech and the infrastructure could be built in small increments as the "farms" paid for themselves.
If an inefficient Nature could accumulate vast stores of liquid energy over vast geologic time, why can't we improve the process by orders of magnitude and produce photosynthetic energy in a form that our industries are already geared up to use - a synthetic and carbon-neutral oilum (without the 'petr')?
Best Wishes,
John
The rise and fall of global temp has been going on well before man and will go on long after man. Does man have an effect on golbal temps? Probably a little before and more now that the population has hit 6.5 billion. It won't get better at 10 billion i'm sure. Burning fuel to make energy is a waste and a source of pollution, that is certain. Can we as a world population do somthing to change it, you bet we can. Make oil and gas companies pay for their own destruction by taxing them like cigerrette companies are taxed. Make them put themselves out of business and convert their money into our next energy system world wide. The world can not afford to argue this problem for 20 yrs. As world population grows and resources become over taxed from use, what is left will become expensive and hard to access. Read the sci fi story nightfall. Buring things is not the answer to our energy needs in any form. Fighure out a better way and do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way that will for sure be popular is the tapping of energy out of the aether, like Tesla (probably) did wwith his Pierce Arrow car in 1931.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe system is also used by the Flying Saucer, the technology of which I discovered and Patented.
No, Nasa was not interested, it would make the Propulsion Engineers obsolete...
Electric power for cars and homes? Who would be interested in that? Creating thousands of jobs for manufacturing and installing these units in homes and cars, who needs that?
So, you will have to wait till some dinosaurs have gone to the eternal hunting fields.
Solar is the only energy source that makes sense over the long term. The sun comes up every morning. All we need to solve is the problem of how to store the energy produced and how best to move it. If the sun stops rising every morning...we won't need energy, we will be energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote to John...you are on point. Want to see some possible solar towers ? Check out the skyline of every large city in the world. The east, west, and south sides of all those skyscrapers would make great solar collectors.
@kaitsu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm ready to be impressed when you can explain how a tall hollow tower - stood in the sunshine ? - can "produce electricity" - greatly or otherwise !!
So the million dollar question regarding all these great ideas:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat percentage of the energy required to construct it, does it return in one year ?. Strangely quite it all goes !
@stephoenix
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so horribly correct ! All that energy does in a world of multitudinous number of temperaments and cultures is to widen the gap between rich and poor and and enable more of the same sad old thing. Physically, it can ONLY raise the temperature, and it seems that there exists a kind of "sociological temperature" which has risen. I guess it's linked to our "standard of living".
It requires an intelligence - that many do not possess -to invent a fridge, and likewise to run a farm - but the rest will all want fridges - and food to put in them - whether it kills all or not. Sadly, it seems that the only thing that limits population is total f*****g horror. i.e. "Sorry cats, but there just Isn't any !!" (Oh I'll go and eat Mrs. mouse, thinks cat)
Animals seem to expand until this condition is achieved. Every time reliable as clockwork. "Oh what fools these mortals be". And this is what we have been trying to improve-upon for millenia, probably, but never so "successfully" as the past 250 ? years. As someone here said "an ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of "cure".
Hoffert is right
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt IS time to get serious about them. “If we don’t start now building the infrastructure for a revolutionary change in the energy system,” Hoffert warns, “we’ll never be able to do it in time.”
But when you point-out to the DECC that that what they call a "Turbine" must needs be a Turbine coupled to an Alternator - and that these two parts have opposite "economy of size - and that therefore the cost of facing any given area of weather is a necklace-shaped function of SIZE - they make no pertinent reply. Building collosal "works of art" will at best spread a message, and at worst give a false sense of security. This is the current situation with (government-backed) "Wind-energy". It's as though in their coffe-soaked offices it's all a big silly joke but great for our "job-creation program". If the termite was this dim it would be extinct by now.
@Igilbewrt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm working towards designing and supplying domestic solar electric, which I can make and install for people. I would like to point-out, however, that though the Sun comes up Every day - to make Day - clouds often come between it and the panel. Whatever some commercial outfits will tell you, I can Assure !! you, that the output from your installation is then about a tenth ? of its working, full sun, value. Here in Bulgaria this does not really "phase me" ! In UK, I would be depressed and be making and selling my excellent wind Turbine-Alternator Devices which go in pairs in a "Tadfrey" atop the house. bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom
Her's an even better information source about nuclear energy http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/summary.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article omits the only system that could actually be built, using present technology, that would be done profitably, without fouling the biosphere, supplying electricity at rates one tenth what we currently pay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's Solar Power Via the Moon, as proposed by Dr. David Criswell.
Check out http://lunarsolarpowersystem.blogspot.com for reference links.
I don't see how Mr. Gibbs couldn't be aware of this. It's the most viable option we have.
@igilbert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaybe you means PART-of (the E,S,W, sides ...) Otherwise is it not going to be dark and cold in there !!
@bidbaddude
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprobably because old wellies burn much better ?
@rbohme
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I read "total nonsense" for the heading "sci-fi" because many "Sci-fi" things are now real, demonstrating that Sci-fi does not equate to nonsense, but "simply not possible at present".
Without changing fundamental constants of nature nuclear fusion will occur only at mind-boggling temperatures and pressures. And no-one - not even Bill Gates himself - can change fundamental constants of nature - there are no knobs on 'em - by definition !! Yes Fleishman and Ponds got everyone - well, quite a few ! - going a few years ago. Their idea of a joke I guess. I hope they published April 1 !
I keep hearing how expensive all of these new power sources are but, isnt it way more expensive to go to war to get what we need now. To operate one carier battle groop costs more in one year than it would to just imploment just one of these technologies. I am tired of hearing these polotision winning about how expensive it would be to do something. The shouldnt even get paid to do what they do. When congress was first inacted it was a sivic dutie to work for congress and you didnt get paid. If we took all of what these people make a year and put it into renewable sources we wouldn't have a problem affording any of this. I think we should congress hasn't done a thing good for this country in about one houndred years. I think that it is time for the public to get angry and start pressuring our goverment to do something other than just talk about it and send our solders to war in countries that dont even want us their to begin with. So we can get oil. It is discusting to me the human race would rather destroy its self just for the mighty dollor than try to do what is best for his fellow man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Daniel35 - I nurtured a similar idea a few years ago. In my version the kite was an assembly of four helicopter stye rotors with each pair balancing the torque reactions and the front pair balancing the rear for stability. Through a system of shafts and gears the mechanical power from the rotors would be fed to a pulley system which pulled the cable up on the windward side and let it back down on the leeward side. The difference in tension between the two multiplied by the speed of the cable would give the amount of power transmitted. As a former glider pilot I know that there are lightweight cables well able to take the kinds of loads we are considering. The cable would of course be turning a pulley attached to a generator on the ground. In the event of very light, or zero wind, the apparatus could either be controllably landed or kept aloft using the cable to turn the rotors. The key incentive is that wind power increases by the cube of wind speed and windspeed increases with altitude. The reaction forces that all wind generators produce is then harnassed to hold the turbine up rather than requiring an expensive tower and foundations to resist them. Not having the generator several hundred feet in the air has a lot of advantages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's ONE idea nobody is thinking of much yet. The thinkers of today are thinking TOO close to the planet, when off-planet the energy is INFINITE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake Mars, for example. It has UNLIMITED hydro-electric potential out the wazoo! (Way beyond our technology to gasp, but we can at least baffle it first, then ramp up as we advance.)
Here is a simple example of Mar's ability RIGHT NOW to supply ALL the electricity of the entire Earth, with high intensity relayed power beams, or new methods of exporting it. It is space/solar x 1000. We only need to go there and setup shop. And we also solve our CO2 global warming problems by encouraging industry to move there. (It will get very cheap in around 10 years, watch companies like Space-X, plus railgun tech.)
Mar's Val Marinaris is a TRENCH between 30,000 and 50,000 feet deep. It is 3,000 miles long. A minor 12" iron water pipe that throws water over the trench can produce UP TO 50,000 ft. of Mars-Gravity [38%] head pressure at the generator turbines (up at the rim), as the water syphons - still way beyond our current technology to handle!
Grab as MUCH energy as you can get the turbines to handle - or build another one beside it. As far as humans can tell - this is endless power. The water will gasify back into the atmosphere as it falls (atomizes) on its trip to the bottom of Val Marinaris, or even help warm (thicken) the atmosphere as water vapor. Win, win all around.
See Dr. Zubrin's latest book, Life On Mars (about hydro-power).
We are talking TERAWATTS of energy you can generate at will, 24/7. This is industrial class power for ANYTHING Earthlings have in mind. From the looks of our present technology - this is INFINITE power. So, go for it.
Want MORE power? Throw another melted [and clarified] permafrost stream over the cliff! (Mars at the poles has been found to be 50% dirty/ice by volume. Just pull it down by ice train...no rails needed. Use methane to thaw.) So, if you want LOTS of power, as much as your technology can handle, get it on Mars, using technology we ALREADY know.
Everything else becomes secondary power sources when you are able to generate that kind of power. And the MORE industry sets up on Mars, they can tap the volts directly, then LESS is needed on Earth for daily power needs, and the air (and water) cleans up too. Use railguns to ship. (Navy already does 13,000 mph.)
How soon can we go? We can start the move as soon as commercial space has new spaceships ready to start the trip, which could be a lot sooner than anyone imagines, maybe 7-10 yrs.
Regarding space based solar power:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual, the terracentric enviros are missing the fact that the remnants of the creation are still abundant in the solar system and easily accessible once we are in earth orbit.
If you guys are serious about turning the earth into a garden planet, you need to stop hating technology and embrace space development. Then we can work on moving the means of production off planet and into earth orbit, starting with energy production.
Now, get out there and embrace a hopeful view of the human future so we can leave the womb of life and spread life into the rest of the universe.
Thanks for your link. It's useful for our community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame material can be found at: http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/fleishman-job-analysis-survey-fjas-model/
I hope it's useful for you and you like it. Please continue sharing more information at this topic.
Best rgs!