The fuel of the future

rathi said:

Telluric current is a low voltage current that isn't physically capable of meeting our power generation needs any more than a hamster wheel is. You can create the most efficient setup possible and still not even be close to the 22 gigawatts needed.

Click to expand...

This is pretty impressive.

In the near future (say within the next century) it's going to be a big jumbled blend of stuff. Most of our electricity will probably be a blend of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Cars will probably be powered by a blend of batteries, hydrogen, and biomass (ethanol and biodiesel). Trains will most likely be the same. More and more ships may go nuclear, and it's possible that planes could go that route as well.

Even further down the line, nuclear power will at some point stop being an option, since we'll run out of radioactive elements to use. At that point, fusion may or may not be a realistic option. I would expect to see a much higher percentage of solar, wind, and hydroelectric though, since those resources are basically unlimited. As for cars, either electric or hydrogen will win out. Both have their pluses and minuses, and it's hard to say which will end up winning. Trains will probably be electric, and may very likely replace airplanes at some point down the line.

molten_dragon, you are lucky you are not made of salt. :mrgreen: Just kidding.

Anyway, it's encouraging that people are constantly trying new ways to get energy.

Canell said:

What would be the primary (most used) fuel of the future?
What's your say?

Click to expand...

What I would like to do is what Brad Pitt is doing in Louisiana but expand it more throughout the nation.

I would like to have a mandate that states that all new low-income housing be built with solar panels. This will help reduce the energy costs to low-income earners and even possibly allow them to get paid for contributing energy to the grid.

So solar power is good but only for static receivers of energy - homes, offices, other buildings, and the like.

For transportation, it depends on the type.

For large urban areas we should develop better public transportation where it needs to be. Also, electric cars will be better for the city.

Suburbs and rural areas will likely keep gasoline cars and trucks because of their distance from urban areas. However, something needs to be done to allow the use of fuel to be used more efficiently. For most places, this may involve expansion of highways, but it could also involve public transportation routes from suburbs to urban areas. For future cities, it may involve having residential and commercial areas developed closer together for shorter commuting.

For agricultural purposes, diesel will be the only fuel we use for agricultural and industrial equipment. Batteries won't keep heavy equipment running long enough for it to be worthwhile, so petro is the only way those things can go.

The future of energy consumption isn't going to be on any one type that will be a catch-all for everybody, which is what oil currently is. Rather, the future of energy consumption is going to be multi-tiered, with specific types of energy optimized for specific types of uses.

Temporal said:

Goshin, here are some links:
Telluric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is a BBC documentary about him:
Veoh - (Documentary) Tesla_Master of Lightning (2000).avi

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, apparently I didn't express myself well. I am not questioning that telluric currents exist, nor denying that Tesla was a genius in his time. The Earth is basically a big revolving magnet, of COURSE there are electrical currents. What I am questioning is that telluric currents can produce useful amounts of electricity vs the investment/infractructure needed, let alone enough to meet humanity's energy needs. If there is any evidence that this is so, why isn't someone researching the idea? Given that we're desperately casting about for alternate energy, you'd think SOMEONE would fund such research if it showed any real promise.

shintao said:

This is pretty impressive.

Click to expand...

After my father retired, he spent several years trying to build a motor that ran on permanent magnets only. I helped him, off an on. This one looks a lot like some of his later designs... but they never ran by themselves for very long, and you couldn't pull any useful load off of them. If they're claiming otherwise, frankly I'd have to suspect fraud until proven wrong. The problem is that the repulsion/attraction effect wants to balance out after a few cycles, so you try to use cams to pull the magnets in and out of contact. The mechanical loss of efficiency means you lose energy each cycle until the motor stops. Meanwhile, you can't put a load on or it stops that much quicker.

Temporal said:

It's not a lie. I'm not trying to intentionally mislead anyone. I believe the technology to be potable, especially if it can be refined. The first electric generators were pieces of **** and they could not power very much at all. But they got millions in funding, which for the time was a lot.

Tesla also worked on that side of things too. He wasn't just some fringe scientist. He helped with the advent of transformers and electric stations for amplifying currents. He just felt they were inefficient and there were better means.

What Goshin said only goes to show how understated Tesla is as a scientist in our historical knowledge. We wouldn't have t.v's or radios without him, and much of the electronics technology today is based on his designs.

Goshin... you can't find a telluric generator in operation but the original station in Britain is still there. It's being made into an historical monument, but all the equipment and apparatus are inside that could make it function again. You need multiple stations to increase energy potentials. He only made the one and it was to conduct research and to show something to his investors.

I'm mostly just annoyed that it is being written off so easily, given that it barely had a chance to take off in the first place and has since been buried.

Click to expand...

MUCH of our electronic technology is based on his designs? I guess it's all secretly hidden at Bell Labs, PARC and other places, huh? This Tesla worship is getting ridiculous. OMG we would have all died off centuries ago without Tesla. :roll:

American said:

MUCH of our electronic technology is based on his designs? I guess it's all secretly hidden at Bell Labs, PARC and other places, huh? This Tesla worship is getting ridiculous. OMG we would have all died off centuries ago without Tesla. :roll:

Click to expand...

How far do you think technology would have progressed without the AC motor?

spud_meister said:

How far do you think technology would have progressed without the AC motor?

Click to expand...

How far with a lot of things, continue your worship. He was the only man to do something.

Temporal said:

It's not a lie. I'm not trying to intentionally mislead anyone. I believe the technology to be potable, especially if it can be refined. The first electric generators were pieces of **** and they could not power very much at all. But they got millions in funding, which for the time was a lot.

Tesla also worked on that side of things too. He wasn't just some fringe scientist. He helped with the advent of transformers and electric stations for amplifying currents. He just felt they were inefficient and there were better means.

What Goshin said only goes to show how understated Tesla is as a scientist in our historical knowledge. We wouldn't have t.v's or radios without him, and much of the electronics technology today is based on his designs.

Goshin... you can't find a telluric generator in operation but the original station in Britain is still there. It's being made into an historical monument, but all the equipment and apparatus are inside that could make it function again. You need multiple stations to increase energy potentials. He only made the one and it was to conduct research and to show something to his investors.

I'm mostly just annoyed that it is being written off so easily, given that it barely had a chance to take off in the first place and has since been buried.

Click to expand...

If you are going to take this position, give us a clue as to your education and expertise that makes your position credible. Are you an engineer? Scientists? what?

American said:

How far with a lot of things, continue your worship. He was the only man to do something.

Click to expand...

I don't worship him, I only really like him 'cause he was portrayed by David Bowie in a movie, but he did have a huge effect on the use of electricity, him and Edison did to electricity what Einstein and Marie Curie did to nuclear physics.

shintao said:

This is pretty impressive.

Click to expand...

It is only impressive to people who don't have a technical education....

spud_meister said:

I don't worship him, I only really like him 'cause he was portrayed by David Bowie in a movie, but he did have a huge effect on the use of electricity, him and Edison did to electricity what Einstein and Marie Curie did to nuclear physics.

Click to expand...

So, what is that little alcove in the vestibule with the statue and all burnt offerings all about, then?

Other
The stress is on the economists, having to determine what is best based on the "humanness of man".
We must study and learn, using 100% of our intelligence.
The fuels will be all of the above and more.
Can we go nuclear and shoot all of the waste to the moon ??
Can we "live" with some pollution, as we always have in the past ?
The dangers ?.. Do we really know what they are ?

Gardener said:

So, what is that little alcove in the vestibule with the statue and all burnt offerings all about, then?

Click to expand...

That's all for Faraday, He really deserves worship.

There is no single fuel for the future. Energy needs are not "one size fit all".
Transportation fuels need to be portable, therefore high density. If you can't carry enough on board to get a repectable distance, you won't want it.
Home energy fuels are not easily (or safely) stored on site. They are delivered to your house, and the supply can be interrupted. Whether home heating oil, natural gas, propane, or electricity, once the delivery is interrupted, you freeze in the dark.
Coal fired electric generation plants usually only have a few weeks supply of coal on site, if that. Trains come with coal, leave with ash, pretty much constantly. NG plants depend on a pipeline and if the demand from that pipeline exceeds supply, the pressure drops, and NG plants shut down. It happened in Texas this last winter.
Nuclear needs less refueling than any other, and spare fuel can be easily and safely stored on site.
Solar is highly interruptible, every night.
There are very few energy storage methods available.

What is left out of the issue so far is efficiencies/conservation. When fuel supplies are low, we will adjust. We may even learn to live on half the energy we do now, meaning we will live like Europeans. :shock:

Your Star said:

My best guess would be solar, it's an unlimited resource, and has no real bad side affects that I can think off.

Click to expand...

Right now, solar's largest hurdle is man's ignorance.
The Hopi natives of the southwest in "America" used solar to their advantage far better than we(most of us) do right now.
For their comfort levels, the sun sufficed, but for us, the sun remains supplemental at best, the heat srorage is expensive, even as this cost is slowly dropping.

Temporal said:

It's a hard thing to do when it's not part of the culture or the economic structure. I mean, even if people do get electric cars, how easy are they to use? Can I plug it in while I'm visiting a relative? Are there stations built everywhere that I can recharge the batteries? (Specifics aside, I hope you get my point.)

It's compounded by the fact that we have well-entrenched, corporate oligarchies that are stifling our capacity to distribute innovation to the general populace. Their bottom line is served better (in a quarterly way) by keeping the system as static as possible. This is where we need major reform, both in education and attitude.

Before humans make major strides in our energy economy, this economic paradigm must necessarily change. Capitalism is an inefficient means to disseminate new technology. The deadlocks and monopolies must be dealt with. In Europe they are seeing more of an expansion of green tech because the regulatory forces are more aware of what needs to be done; but North America is held in the grips of non-government actors.

Click to expand...

150 years ago, we had zero infrastructure for gasoline, well, there was a little...
So we must think positive and believe it can be done again...out infrastructure needs a ton of work anyway.
And, as always, its "black tech" that matters, not green.
black - another word for economics.

earthworm said:

Right now, solar's largest hurdle is man's ignorance.
The Hopi natives of the southwest in "America" used solar to their advantage far better than we(most of us) do right now.
For their comfort levels, the sun sufficed, but for us, the sun remains supplemental at best, the heat srorage is expensive, even as this cost is slowly dropping.

Click to expand...

We would have to change our expectations of "comfort" quite a bit. Even to the point of putting on a sweater instead of increasing the temperture of an entire house. sarcasm on...govt control, govt control !!!! warning, danger....sarcasm off..

Neighbor is a retired ECON professor, he has some good jokes about it.

His favorite....
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters

Long story short, it takes engineers to find new and better ways to improve our energy situation, not politicians and economists....

rathi said:

Hydrogen is not a great fuel. You can't get the cooling for liquid hyrogen in cars, so you are stuck with heavy and bulky metal hydride tanks. On top of that you need a heavy and expensive fuel cell to convert the hydrogen into electricity. You also would need to develop entirely new infrastructure for transporting the fuel. Hydrogen vehicles can barely match electric vehciles today and don't have anywhere near the development potential.

Click to expand...

No, hydrogen technology has been worked on since the 1970s, but funding was haulted by oil and gas companies. You can make hydrogen in your own house, and NASA even uses it.

I have a friend who graduated from Georgia Tech in the 80s and he worked on engineering hydrogen fuel cell technology and he said they even made perfectly working engines even back then.

celticwar17 said:

No, hydrogen technology has been worked on since the 1970s, but funding was haulted by oil and gas companies. You can make hydrogen in your own house, and NASA even uses it.

I have a friend who graduated from Georgia Tech in the 80s and he worked on engineering hydrogen fuel cell technology and he said they even made perfectly working engines even back then.

Click to expand...

Oil and gas companies don't have the power to stop federal funding.....despite what the tin foil hat crowd says.
Fact is, it takes more BTUs to make hydrogen than you can get back out of it....it is a net LOSS, and only NASA has the funds to do something at a loss.
Not to mention that it is highly flammable....

UtahBill said:

Oil and gas companies don't have the power to stop federal funding.....despite what the tin foil hat crowd says.
Fact is, it takes more BTUs to make hydrogen than you can get back out of it....it is a net LOSS, and only NASA has the funds to do something at a loss.
Not to mention that it is highly flammable....

Click to expand...

Thats a myth if you think its flammability actually affects the safety of the car... it doesnt... gasoline is actually more dangerous

Takes more BTU's???? The electricity used to making hydrogen in our own homes can come from solar energy.

And i didnt say federal funding either -_-.

I believe only in nuclear power sources, everything else is more expensive or dangerously for the nature, solar, hydrogen and wind are OK, but they can not supply all power because the technology is still not ripe.The Oil reserves will be empty already in thirty years, biomass fuel makes millions of people hungry.

Alfons said:

I believe only in nuclear power sources

Click to expand...

So, you've never heard of Chernobyl and Fukushima, huh? :shock: