Subscription Center
Mar 18, 2009 11:30 AM | 34
.jpg)
As the call for a clean-energy savior—to wash away our fossil-fuel sins—grows louder, the number of questionable candidates swells. Should we be looking to photovoltaic or fusion? Turbines or tides? With thanks to readers who responded to our Twitter call for favorite alt-energy duds, here's a roundup of five ideas that may one day succeed, but aren't going to save the globe from a climate calamity anytime soon.
Zero-point energy
Some have posited that looking to the very small – as in quantum – might help solve the very big global energy need. According to quantum mechanics, a perfect vacuum actually contains a bit of energy, which can create particles that pop into existence out of nowhere before quickly disappearing again. Physicists have seen this zero-point energy in the form of the Casimir effect in which two closely spaced plates in a vacuum are pushed together ever so slightly by this energy. But one of the big problems would be capturing useful amounts of energy; after all, it takes at least as much energy to pull the plates apart again. Nevertheless, plenty of so-called "perpetual motion" devices using zero-point energy have been proposed, but careful analysis inevitably shows that such schemes violate at least one law of thermodynamics, and nothing concrete (or even too theoretically plausible) has materialized just yet.
Cold fusion
Also from the realm of the theoretically dubious, cold fusion (or low energy nuclear reaction) has had a hazy history since it was first reported in 1989. The process, which allegedly created an unexpected burst of heat in an experiment by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah, apparently occurred when some heavy water (water that contained extra hydrogen isotopes called deuterium), was zapped with electricity by an electrode made of palladium (a rare metal). So far it hasn't been replicated to satisfy either the scientific community or the Department of Energy, leaving this type of fusion's future out in the cold for now.
Passive collection
What if we could some how capture all of that energy we're constantly putting out – the "wasted" energy crossing the office for a cup of coffee or pounding on the keyboard? Passive energy collection technology has been installed under turnstiles in a Japanese East Railways station and even the floor of a dance club in London. This collected energy can then be turned around to meet some of the facility's needs. But all the footfalls in all the train stations – and dance floors, for that matter – aren't likely to be able to power life at the scale the world currently demands. Not to mention the hassle of ripping up all of that linoleum.
Hot fusion
We know its power well from the sun's rays and a nuclear bomb's wrath, but can nuclear fusion be replicated on a large (and safe) scale soon enough to power earth? Hot fusion, supported here in a 1999 article, has proven to be much trickier to tackle than its cousin, fission. It eventually promises to be more eco-friendly than nuclear-waste-generating fission, but even the ambitious ITER thermonuclear fusion reactor project, which is a joint venture among the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the U.S., has yet to get off the ground.
Sea movement
Tidal power, compliments of the moon's gravitational pull, has been slow going so far. Early installations dating back to the 1960s created massive barrages that, like dams, block a good deal of water – and wildlife. More recently, underwater turbines have been dipped into waters around the world in hopes of replicating the success of wind power. So far, it's had some drawbacks, including environmental concern about marine life safety and the failure of a big batch of blades in the Roosevelt Tidal Energy Project's installation (which have since been replaced). Wave power has also been tossed around as a "green" way to harness the oceans' power. A few floating installations have been riding he waves – some buoy-like others more serpentine – but this concept will need some large-scale champions if it's going to avoid the fate of other novel alt-energy ideas that are already dead in the water.
What other questionable alternatives did we leave out? Let us know your favorite unsung (or unworthy) alternative energy ideas by commending below or tapping into our Twitter feed.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto/fleag
Tags:
alternative energy,
fusion,
energy,
tidal
More News Blog:
Next: Does religion lead to more aggressive medical care?
Previous: PSA testing may not save your life, after all
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
34 Comments
Add CommentThese ideas fail, in part, because they technologists start off with an incorrect assumption - thet is - big energy project good, small house sized energy bad. Aside from the huge amount of energy lost during transmission to the end user, big energy science ignores the reality that extreme weather from climate change will savage the entire distribution grid continuously within the next few years. Small, user based technologies have a better chance of service continuation and costs to the user should be less expensive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig energy is about one thing - control of the process by big business.
Apart from Big Energy, no one has the muscle to do the research to get these projects off the ground, and these companies are fighting each other more than the consumer. Right now, the government subsidies of @Home energy is akin to Welfare and transmission losses are negligible to losses from bad maintenance and placement. Let the big boys innovate and reap the rewards, or put your money where your mouth is found the next Big Energy by exploiting the home market, if it is indeed as ripe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd also like to call into question the placement of Zero-Point Energy and Cold Fusion as anything remotely viable. These were fairy tales from the beginning, and people bilked by these schemes (however respectable a scientific institution it was) deserve their fate. How about piezo electric clothes, hydrogen cars or compressed air power storage that have been hyped by a more credible segment of the sector.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispowering the whole Europe with 0.3% of Sahara desert comes to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...
MK
solar.mridkash.com
I strongly disagree with the characterization of (hot) nuclear fusion as a "big alt-energy letdown." While it is true that fusion is not yet commercially available, progress towards this goal has been tremendous, as the achievements mentioned in the "1999 article" (linked to above) suggest. Most notably, the TFTR (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor) and JET (Joint European Torus) experiments demonstrated fusion power levels in excess of 10 MW [1,2].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe upcoming ITER experiment will build on previous achievements and advances in scientific understanding, and demonstrate reactor-scale plasmas with levels of fusion power in the hundreds of megawatts. Time and patience will be required to make this challenging next step, but the hot fusion story is by no means over, or in any way a "letdown."
[1] J. D. Strachan, et al., Physical Review Letters 72, 3526 (1994).
[2] A. S. Kaye and the JET Team, Fusion Technology 34, 308 (1998).
Iter-type reactors will not come into industrial scale production before 2100 at the very earliest. And they will produce radioactive waste contrary to what has often been said. In the meantime we had just as well ensure we have alternative energy sources, just in case fusion doesn't work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOTEC (ocean thermal, exploiting temperature difference between warm surface and cold depths) is one of the proven-feasible, ample-capacity options for which the only barrier is economic; fission is similar, though its environmental negatives are more obvious. People would not talk about Stone Ages and so forth if they absorbed the fact that these things are known, tested, and ready to go. Germany ran cars on heated wood during WW2, South Africa refined gas from coal while embargoed: people can cope once necessity is clear. We come from impressive stock, and only feel like incapable effete degenerates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's the global heat gain or loss that affects climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat no one seems to be talking about is HEAT pollution, which is avoided only when we use geothermal, or biofuels, or capture other solar energy which is there anyway.
Various power redisdribution mechanisms aren't much of a factor in climate because they dissipate heat. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is the raw material of life & allows plants to sequester excess energy, & it's heat blanketing effects are eclipsed by water vapor anyway.
On the other hand, using long sequestered fuels heats things up. Fission heats things up. Lots of orbiting solar power collecters could cook us like an ant under a magnifying lens.
The real question is how much of a factor we are in all this when compared to the 8000 mile glob of molten rock whose 20 mile thick skin we live on 40% of, which is pulled & streached by an orbiting moon 1/6th it's mass and heated by a variable output fusion reactor that we swing around in a 93 million mile eliptical wobbling orbit.
Don't lie to yourselves, science isn't really looking for 0.e because the only man who could have brought it in time was prevented... The crisis on energy in the modern time line can be interpreted as a product of missing Tesla Tech... Nothing has changed, free energy is still never going to happen so something else will, an energy so free it will devastate all other paradigms...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitical hot air or children playing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to point out that continued improvements in the construction of the electric brushless motor using ultra powerful magnets have given us home tools that are far superior to the electric drill of days past. Better batteries, super capacitors, ultra powerful magnets, high temperature superconducters, all of these will be applied in the production of turbines to provide increased capacities for power generation. We continue to improve existing technologies, and until we have reached the end of the line for them we will very likely not be ready to apply any of these imaginitive and exotic alternatives, barring any major breakthrough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.ceto.com.au
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe Limits to Growth; the 30 year update ; every senario ends in collapse unless we reduce our population back to sustainable levels regardless of technological progress
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement that cold fusion has not been replicated is incorrect. It has been replicated thousands of times, in over 200 major laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake, BARC and Mitsubishi. These replications have been published in hundreds of experimental papers in J. Electronal. Chem., Jap. J. Applied Phys. and other mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Some of the data is at very high s/n ratio, such as excess heat at ~100 W with no input power, and tritium at levels 10E8 times background. There is no chance these results are all experimental errors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you review the literature more carefully before commenting on this research. You will find a bibliography of 3,500 papers and 500 full text papers here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
I would challenge you to look into the cold fusion experiment which just hit the news from the navy research institute and I believe another project in, I believe, Hokkaido Japan. Also, zero point energy is accepted as being an inconclusive theory with mankind not knowing enough at present to credit or discredit it. Maybe in a few more years it'll be worth writing them off but I wouldn't do it yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf extracting usable Zero-point energy is theoretically possible without violating any physical laws, and I suspect it is, then the engineers will figure it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts interesting to note that in all this conversation there is no mention of population....perhaps mother nature with all her variations of the flu virus will solve the problem for us as all the scientists and engineers continue to debate the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHot Fusion Reactors
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHot Fusion systems may be big, but imagine them sitting near the coastal waters with a pair of five-mile long transmission lines feeding energy to opposed directions to desalination projects that can pump freshened water far inland for the thirsty land and peoples. Very little heat is generated from transmissions of water through pipes.
Every bit of thermal waste heat can be utilized as a central steam distribution system to the desalination plants, as well as to be used by turbines as they produce EM energy for the local areas, not to mention their ability to connect into the energy grid. And then there are the two electromagnetic collection systems from the several magnetic toroids in each reactor zone; they also can be utilized as energy systems, such as boosting capsules up to a low earth orbit. No exhaust products from their long and elevated track and then guidance system as the capsules almost disappear from view from their acquired suddenly fast momentums.
With only a few more systems added on, then a magnetic force field; constructed of several layers of vibrating, standing magnetic waves (VSMW) with proton gasses magnetically attracted to and captured by the negative energy of the VSMW, then the only magnetically energied item that can penetrate that shield is an item with a stronger negative energy. That externally, or internally, controlled shield would also stop a transmission of errant magnetics from the reactor zones.
That VSMW shield is the same construction as the Suns termination shock zone, and which is at the outer limits of the Suns magnetic influence against the Galactic Cosmic Rays. That is visible by visiting the NASA image titled The Crossbow, which is an image of the neutron star Velas accoutrements of electromagnetic and magnetic field lines and their twin concentric circles. All of those systems of both stars are simple to explain once the reader understands the basics of our universes constructions, which explanation is itself quite simple, but rather lengthy.
The Ancient One: Eddie R.
Hot Fusion Reactors
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHot Fusion systems may be big, but imagine them sitting near the coastal waters with a pair of five-mile long transmission lines feeding energy to opposed directions to desalination projects that can pump freshened water far inland for the thirsty land and peoples. Very little heat is generated from transmissions of water through pipes.
Every bit of thermal waste heat can be utilized as a central steam distribution system to the desalination plants, as well as to be used by turbines as they produce EM energy for the local areas, not to mention their ability to connect into the energy grid. And then there are the two electromagnetic collection systems from the several magnetic toroids in each reactor zone; they also can be utilized as energy systems, such as boosting capsules up to a low earth orbit. No exhaust products from their long and elevated track and then guidance system as the capsules almost disappear from view from their acquired suddenly fast momentums.
With only a few more systems added on, then a magnetic force field; constructed of several layers of vibrating, standing magnetic waves (VSMW) with proton gasses magnetically attracted to and captured by the negative energy of the VSMW, then the only magnetically energied item that can penetrate that shield is an item with a stronger negative energy. That externally, or internally, controlled shield would also stop a transmission of errant magnetics from the reactor zones.
That VSMW shield is the same construction as the Sun’s termination shock zone, and which is at the outer limits of the Sun’s magnetic influence against the Galactic Cosmic Rays. That is visible by visiting the NASA image titled ‘The Crossbow’, which is an image of the neutron star Vela’s accoutrements of electromagnetic and magnetic field lines and their twin concentric circles. All of those systems of both stars are simple to explain once the reader understands the basics of our universe’s constructions, which explanation is itself quite simple, but rather lengthy.
The Ancient One: Eddie R.
"Nothing has changed, free energy is still never going to happen so something else will, an energy so free it will devastate all other paradigms..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI humbly submit the proposition that we somehow tap into the plethoric, mind numbing, and massive overuse of the word, "paradigm" to resolve all future energy needs.
Surely a magazine as advanced in its scientific understanding as Scientific American would take the trouble to learn what has been discovered in the last 20 years about cold fusion. The claims have been shown to be correct by many laboratories all over the world and the information is easily available in books and on the LENR.org website. It is now being actively investigated in 8 countries. Anyone who still believes the negative ideas that were popular 20 years ago has simply not done their homework.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBRAVO!! I give you the "defender of the faith" medal! was this article written by the API? (AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE) seems to be. what is the hidden theme? "oil and coal forever" the reason you don't have working alternatives is you allow an oligarchy to dictate funding and public opinion. duds? then why are over 5,000 patents classified by the pentagon relating to energy tech? this article is total bullshit and a great example of mainstream brainwashing. BTW "scienctific" american bashed the airplane and rockets as unworkable too keep that in mind oh infallible "experts"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAPI (american petroleum institute) loves you! that article is pure lies. over 5,000 patents on energy are classified and buried by the pentagon. PLENTY of ways exist to break oil dependence. that is a blatant piece of propaganda designed to make public opinion serve API's agenda. mainstream press is garbage! as a for instance there is no reason why inertia driven pendulums from wave energy can't supply U.S. electricity. kudos to the intelligent individual bringing up sahara utilization! over here we could use the nevada/utah/arizona/new mexico for the same purpose
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll ideas, suggested by recognized experts , should be taken seriously by those whose obligation is to support scientific and technological progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll suggestions made by recognized experts should be taken seriously by those whose responsibility is to support scientific and technological progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero Point energy was a failure? That's funny, ever heard of Tesla? Yea he figured how to tap into zero point energy back in the 1800's before JP Morgan shut him down. Same thing happened with Cold Fusion. The researchers who "tested" cold fusion were all funded by hot fusion grants and had a very strong excuse for wanting cold fusion to appear a hoax. Also it was too disruptive to the oil industry. Imagine if everyone had a cold fusion reactor in their homes and cars right now. The world would be peaceful and the energy companies would be out of work. So they figure out a way to discredit cold fusion and the government blacklists it (the government gets a lot of tax dollars from gasoline). Get your facts straight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that Passive Collection is silly and Hot Fusion is unlikely to fulfill its promise. But I'm surprised to see zeropoint and LENR dismissed in such a simplistic and, frankly, uninformed way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLENR has indeed been confirmed in private, university and government labs on many occasions during the past two decades. The challenge for LENR has not been so much to produce repeatable effects but to be given a fair hearing by a scientific community accustomed to treating it as an object of ridicule.
Ridicule should play no part in the practice of scientific inquiry. It is plainly and simply a tactic of pseudoscience.
In the American Chemical Society published in it's March 18 PressPac (acs.org) an article titled ""cold fusion" rebirth? new evidence for existence of controversial energy source. " I would just post the link but the url is long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPassive collection should include many technologies including geothermal, which is very successful. As is passive architectural solar design. Ocean wave and tide energy is ,very obviously, possible. It needs to show that it can be competitive with other sources of energy. Now that natural gas has been found to be superabundant in nature, we should focus on using it. It can fuel all our power plants, and the existing fleet of vehicles. They can be easily converted to propane. Biogas is also practical, and can use all forms of waste, thus serving a secondary service. It is sad to see our magazine being so flippant about such a serious subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author left out the biggest energy dud of all; corn based ethanol, for reasons which everybody already knows. But kiwichick and wgreer shouldn't be too concerned about human population growth. It could hold the answers for both our energy and our food needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the movies "The Matrix" and "Soylent Green".
regarding "experts" who decides who is an expert? in an ideal world maybe a panel of unbiased humans who have empirical success in the field of inquiry? in OUR world a bunch of clowns who are beholden to special intrests seem to confer the "expert" title on anyone wearing a suit who agrees with thier agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKatherine Harmon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor article...D-
Great things are not done by impulse,
but by a series of small things brought together.
By Vincent Van Gogh
I wonder why the technology use in selfwindeing watchs hasn't been scaled up to absorbe the energy being created by all the minor earthquakes going on around us all the time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this