Will Blog for Experience: Patrick

I'm a student blogger for Experience.com and if my blog gets the most readers out of these 5 blogs I will be going to Washington, D.C. for a job shadow at the Department of Energy, courtesy of CBCampus. Experience is a career site specifically for college students & alumni. They provide extraordinary job opportunities, real-world insights, and a network of inspirational role-models to help students explore and launch careers they love. Keep reading my blog if you want me to lead this challenge!

Experience, Inc.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Top 10 Future Energy Solutions

Current energy consumption, vastly from fossil fuels, has dangerous environmental consequences. The quantity of energy we use will only go up in the near future. Here are 10 possible sources of energy to help meet this need:

10 - Hydrogen

While not an energy source itself, hydrogen fuel is a great energy storage medium. It can be produced anywhere from water, has a very good energy to weight ratio, and when combusted, gives off water vapor (a natural greenhouse gas). But if we're going to produce hydrogen with fossil fuels, we might as well be burning fossil fuels for energy; it's more efficient.

9 - Pervasive Solar Photovoltaics

The solar pv technology we have today, while expensive and inefficient, could make a significant impact if we being to make greater use of it. Energy from the sun is essentially unlimited, and once the cell is manufactured there are almost no maintenance costs. Things like cars assisted by solar power, solar shingles, and solar backpacks could all reduce the amount of energy we use from other sources every day. The fact that these solutions are large decentralized and grid-independent provides an added benefit.

8 - Gratzel Solar Cells

Otherwise known as dye-sensitized solar cells, these solar cells could be 1/5 the cost of conventional solar cells. Plus you avoid the energy-intensive process of getting perfect silicon wafers. See this interview with the inventor for a better idea. The energy efficiency of these cells still needs some work, but it could get up to 33%, using the wonders of nanotechnology.

7 - Geothermal Energy

Geothermal power comes from high temperatures deep beneath the earth's surface. A typical geothermal plant can easily get 100MW of electricity, a number hard to fathom coming from a wind or solar farm.

This graph shows power consumption in Iceland, where geothermal is a very economical energy source, and can easily provide a lot of capacity.
6 - Wave Power

A rising wave certainly has energy, and waves are so pervasive that we could harvest them for very real quantities of energy. Devices such as the Pelamis Wave Energy Converter sit semi-submerged on the water's surface. As joints bend, oil is pushed through hydraulic motors to produce electricity. See an animation here. Three have already been delivered to Portugal, where they will produce a combined 2.25MW of power.


5 - Solar Thermal

The sun can easily be used to harness energy in terms of heat; both for hot water applications, and to use that hot water to generate electricity. Large solar thermal power plants can be built. The SEGS system in California has a capacity of 350 MW. Solar thermal has the potential to make a significant energy contribution in areas with large amounts of solar insolation.

4 - Nuclear Power (Thorium Based)

In terms of currently available technology, it is hard to argue with nuclear. The third generation of reactors are extremely safe, and the increasing reliance on passive safety features should allay most concerns. It generates a very small quantity of highly toxic waste, which I would argue is better than the inane quantities of less toxic waste found in coal plants. Reprocessing is a simple way to reduce the quantity of this waste, but that leaves you with plutonium sitting around, raising proliferation concerns. Nuclear energy generates a lot of energy on a small amount of land, and releases no carbon dioxide.

Using Thorium as a nuclear fuel would make nuclear power even better. You drastically reduce the quantity of waste produced, eliminate meltdown and most proliferation concerns, and create a much more efficient reactor. Plus, thorium is about three times more abundant than uranium.

3 - Wind Power

Wind energy is one of the most economical solutions of the "pure renewable" sources. It consumes no fuel in operation, giving off no harmful greenhouse gases. It has potential in both large-scale wind farms and small scale implementation on a home by home basis. See this video on the Aeroturbine for a novel idea of urban and suburban wind power. Buildings can start producing more energy than they consume.

And please don't be swayed by the myth that wind turbines will kill all the world's birds. The amount of birds killed is negligible compared to other human structures such as power lines and high-rise buildings.

2 - Clean Coal

This article from the December issue of Discover is a great read about clean coal. It is generally a combination of scrubbers for sulfurs, nitrogens, and particulates combined with carbon sequestration. Another possible solution is coal gasification. Converting solid coal into a gas allows it to burner cleaner and more efficiently.

While coal isn't nearly as "clean" as the other energy sources mentioned here, I put it this high on the list because of the prevalence of the fuel. There is a lot of coal in this world, and it is cheap and easy to convert to electricity. It's hard to argue with the economics of it. While we may run out of oil in a few decades, coal will last a few centuries. Make our coal plants cleaner, and you have a very politically attractive solution to a large problem.

1 - Artificial Photosynthesis

Solar energy is the most attractive option, because, in it's base form, that is where Earth gets pretty much all of its energy. Plants do a very efficient job of converting this energy into useful forms; our solar cells can't compare. Either for straight up electricity, or hydrogen generation, artificial photosynthesis could solve many of our energy problems. Janine Benyus has a chapter on it in her book Biomimicry, which I highly recommend.

This is a very long term solution; while much progress has been made in the past decades (using the wonders of nanotechnology and such) there is still a lot to be done.


Update: Thanks for all your comments folks. There is no silver bullet to solve our energy problems, and these are just a subset of some parts to the solution. Starting a good global discussion is key.

21 Comments:

  • At 11:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great List!

     
  • At 11:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    All of these sources are valid energy sources however you have ommited many of the downsides to each one. For example Thorium based reactors need to be "started" with a infusion of High Energy Uranium (HEU) and usually uses two reactors becasuse thorium needs to be converted to U-233 to be a valid fuel, or for example wave power, this has huge environmental effects and to be effective requires large installations, blocking off as much as a full natural bay or harbor, in addition they are quite loud if you ever are near the turbines while wind rushes through them, as for solar (PV cells) current cell designs are 4-5x more expensive than conventional power and are only a benefit when you are in an off the grid environment, just to name a few, not one of these current technologies can adequately replace coal for cost effectiveness on a non internalized economic system, if you start figuring in externalities though there is a huge difference. Anyways thats my two cents on the matter....

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Qala said…

    Great info thx :)

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'd like to mention using gravity as means of producing energy by using dams for rivers.

    Not all countries have the option of turning rivers into power like Iceland currently does but we have no 'dirty' means of producing energy.

    We use steam from the earth as well as rivers to produce our energy.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Imagine the investments. The question is whether vested interests will keep concentrating on glutting themselves on (comparatively) cheap oil - before having to go to all this political and technological headache to shift to yet untested sources of energy?

    Plus todays decissionmakers are generally old men, who dont care much about longterm consequences. They are interested in maintaining stability for what 10-20 years? Beyond that most people in power assume they're dead anyways. Real policies are not their concern.

    In the long run we need not just some energy, we need a substantial potential for growth. Our civilization depends on the potential for doubling energy consumption in a generation. If you cant make that promise, a lot of dirt poor people in the third world won't sit by idly, as the obscenely rich (from their respective) glut through todays wealth of energy resources, leaving them nothing. Imagine being one of half a billion young men in asia with an income just above that of a stone age stonebaker. They look forward to what, 50 years of poverty, with no chance on car, TV, fridge, PC, internet? They gonna accept that forever? I don't think so. One way or another these people will come knocking on the door of the rich countries, demanding a share of luxury, either through vicious economic competition - or by one or another type of terrorism or crime.

    The only solution is abundant fusion energy, coupled with literal exploitation and colonization of near space. I do not see an acceptable future for the human race if we don't have real tritium mining on the moon, productive fusion reactors churning out gigawatts and the independent space colonies by 2050.

    Lebensraum ! And not a moment too late too.

     
  • At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You forgot the REAL #1 energy option for the future: Lunar Solar Power. Look it up.

     
  • At 9:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    They are valid; unfortunately, I'll be a little pessimistic. We, as a species, tend to use any available source of energy to increase our rate or resource extraction or production. Thus, while we may end up with a sustainable energy source, this will not directly lead to a sustainable society.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey,
    Great list!

    One thing to note on hydrogen, which is that when you talk about efficiency per weight, hydrogen even in liquid form is much less dense than other materials - ie, 1 kilo of H takes way more space than 1 kilo of, say, petro. This means storage becomes a problem, and quickly, especially considering we have to either cool it dramatically (in which case the cost of cooling factors in to make hydrogen a far less attractive method of energy) or compress it, which is dangerous.

    I'm a big fan of Solar, personally, mainly due to its decentralizable nature - Nuclear is great, but it's not a home solution - it's a solution with nothing smaller than a macro implementation (right now, at least - ever read Asimov?) . With Solar, you can create an individualized off-the-grid solution - it can be applied anywhere from a macro level, powering cities, all the way down to powering homes, appliances, and calculators. That appeals to the hacker in me, somehow.

    Cheers!

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Where did you get your info about plant photosynthesis being more efficient than solar panels? Most sources put plant efficiency at around 0.1% and solar panels somewhere between 10-20%

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great list. Not keen on the clean coal simply because of the damage done to the environment getting to the coal in the first place.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hydro-power produced from river running down a hill or mountain is not powered by gravity. The energy comes from the sun, water evaporates and it rains on top of the hill. All energy except for nuclear on the earth comes from the sun, oil, wind, biomass, coal and anything else you can think of is a derivative of solar energy stored on the earth. So in the case of oil and coal, we should leave out the millions of years it take for the solar energy to be converted to oil and coal and just use solar energy from the start.

     
  • At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Very nice work. I'd like to see a mention of the Solar Thermal Tower. There is a small one operating in Spain, and a larger one to be built in Australia.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11. Reduce energy demand

    Give tax breaks and subsides for energy efficiency. For example: low energy lighting and better insulation for buildings.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How bout pelletized fuels? Wood pellets seem to be the tip of the ice berg. Lots of research is going into using certain prairy grass that is pervasive through out the country. Once pelletized, these fuels burn very efficiently and clean. They are the most obvious way to harness solar energy in a natural way.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You completely ignored nuclear fusion. The new ITER facilities are supposed to return a Q=10 (that is a 10:1 ratio of energy input to output) with a D-T fuel combination.

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I liked having learned of some new ideas. However it was disappointing to have coal and nukes rehashed, (which these days are mostly pushed as a politcial sop). Coal is still horrid not only via the plants pollution, and even with the new tech that itself is very downplayed for political reasons. Energy reliant on resources is bound to get more expensive, and be environmentally damaging. Also I have to agree with lantow on nuclear, and aside from that the toxic waste problem was really breezed over. Though the quanties are not as much the toxicity is substantially more, the worst we can possibly get. And it lasts -thousands- of years longer to degrade with still no firm solution of storage or clean up. If solar can be called ineffecient solely because of start up costs, what can be said of Nuclear plants when in the 70's they wouldn't even be built if it were not for the gov'ts extremely high subsidizing? (something happening with oil right now)
    Solar panels definitely got a bum rap here. The qualifier "ineffecient" can only be hoped to mean that they can in the future be made much better. For when they use no resources, and pay for themselves after 6 years -when it makes you money- how inefficient can it deserved to be called? Solar has virtually no parts to break down, virtually no degregation over time in efficiency, and no fuel that must be sought, dug up, and safely disposed of when spent.
    Anyway, thanks for the rest of it, I really enjoyed hearing more about wave power. Maybe something about biomass next time?

     
  • At 1:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    For entertainment, I would like to add that you can forget about all those methods if what this Irish firm claims turns out to be true in the next year: http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5

     
  • At 5:49 AM, Blogger Doug said…

    Hi Patrick:
    The bottom line here is that science and environmental concerns will always be at issue with economics. Our nation has embraced the idea of becoming energy indpendent. That's what's important. We've chosen biofuel as that method for now since the main fuel source is abundandant (corn) and making the fuel is easy (fermentation). So let's keep getting the billions of dollars from those "Old men who are short term thinkers" (Some of us call them Venture Capitalists and understand that there is a balance between economics and good energy/environmental policy).

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I hope wave and wind energy become primary components to the future power generation for the world. I'm glad they made it on the list!

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    if you're going to break down the various solar technologies, i'd add one more to the mix:

    printed Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide thin film

    a Silicon Valley company, Nanosolar, recently received a good bit of funding, and their pilot plant is expected to produce panels totaling 430 megawatts each year.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The current way the government prioritizes energy use and availability has a substantial impact on our consumption rates and needs to be addressed on a daily bases in our lowest courts with the greatest number of people being rewarded in some way for being more power consumption conscious.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home