Image: Illustration by Chris Labrooy
In Brief
- Scientists and engineers are trying to develop long-shot technologies that could drastically change the energy game.
- New power sources could be created by igniting fission reactors with laser-driven fusion explosions that consume spent nuclear fuel, a hazardous waste. Other machines could convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel that displaces gasoline.
- Energy efficiency could be raised significantly by magnets that revolutionize air conditioners and by shape-memory alloys that boost mileage in cars.
More In This Article
Many people are working to harness renewable energy sources more effectively and to enhance energy efficiency. All good. Most of the efforts will probably result in welcomed but incremental improvements, however. Radical innovations are needed to drastically change the energy game.
For years scientists and engineers have touted some fantastic schemes: satellites that beam solar power to receivers on land; wind machines that hover in the atmosphere, generating electricity. Down on earth, however, researchers have recently received substantial government or private funding for a remarkable variety of long-shot technologies in a few key areas. The projects we profile here are leading examples of the payoffs that are possible—if, of course, the inventors manage to overcome daunting hurdles to bringing practical, mass-produced and affordable technologies to fruition.
This article was originally published with the title 7 Radical Energy Solutions.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThe science should be payed attention to,however,we must do my best for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am the film maker of "The John Searl Story"... and have had to be objective in assessing Searl's converter device developed fifty years ago. Searl's design is not a problem in physics... it is a problem in electrical engineering. The unique rotor / stator relationship when combined with the layered materials (supercapacitor) leaves only the necessary motion / rotation to achieve induction. Perhaps Searl's design employs the "Lorentz Force"... please comment if you agree / disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the word "radical" would certainly apply to Searl's design... but radical in its simplicity. Could it be that simple? Searl Magnetics is re-creating the Searl converter and has several hardware demonstration units that confirm the basics needed for the Searl device to work. Interesting that the "waveform" magnetic field can be printed (repeatable) and the "eddy currents" produced by the copper plate will repel the magnetic roller.
In short, Searl's design is NOT disappointing but encouraging.
Another innovation has been passive solar building design. We built our home using ICF construction and passive solar window design. In the coldest part of the winter (Northern Ontario, Canada) our furnace rarely runs if the sun is out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might like to see US Patent 7 685 817 "Method and system for providing a rotational output using a non-combustion heat source". This process uses used control rod material as a source and a radical change in thermal dynamic engine design, that overcomes the limitations of the Stirling engine. This is green energy of the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy radio talk and university lectures on cold fusion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html
My papers on the subject
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/7519801.aspx
enjoy
Frank Znidarsic
Let's not forget that the Searl story is entertaining, but the 'science' is total nonsense. Multiple scientific tests have shown the device does not work. It's that old perpetual motion nonsense. The new dodge is that it was a long time ago and we're not sure what he was doing. We're sure. It was a hoax, of course, like all perpetual motion claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf these "radical" ideas succeed, what resources will that energy have to work on? As the fossil fuels experience teaches us, all non-renewable resources will peak and decline. This implies that all substitutes (however effective) will also peak and decline. Renewable resources also need to be used with care. Renewable resources can only be consumed at or below their renewal rates and only in ways that doesn't affect that rate. A recent article in New Scientist suggests that extraction of energy from wind is much more limited than most people expect. I hope similar scientific attention is made to all so-called renewables, so that we don't simply assume that their use can have no adverse impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what you are saying is that if we find the magic low cost superconductor then the Searl engine becomes useable but until then it is just a boondoggle. Funny how so many things become the magic tool as long as some other problem is solved first by someone else. It is kind of like expecting to win the lottery without buying a ticket. Nice job plugging your own movie though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat New Scientist article claiming a much lower global wind power capacity is bunk. Look here to see the article demolished:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climateprogress.org/2011/04/04/wind-and-wave-power-renewable-new-scientist/
Dear members of the green commercial cult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour foolery has become utterly unbearable. Kindly, please commence mass suicide in order to rid this planet of your unholy presence. The problem of hydrocarbon energy shortage has been solved 50 years ago. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Anonymous from Russia
Interesting, though the worst thing it states is that the original title of the NS article was wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther than that, I'm glad that science is starting to look at this kind of thing. We just assume that renewable energy can take up the slack as fossil fuel use decline either through depletion or through a concerted effort to do something about climate change.
Clearly, all of the energy in earth's natural energy flows are currently employed in maintaining (or trying to) our current environment and biodiversity. There will be limits to how much of that we can divert for other uses (both environmental and resource limits), and we should not assume that those limits are out of reach. Just what those limits might be have not yet been seriously addressed by science. At least this piece of research is a start.
It will be fine to read something about the new discovery of the cold fusion by italian scientists Rossi and Focardi. It seems that there is already an active production plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm trying to understand how the alloy belt physically works. Can somebody explain how they keep the belt turning in one direction please? I'd really appreciate it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this