If news reports are any indication, the general public seems to be overly optimistic about science's ability to deliver truly effective alternative energy sources in the near future. Those who don't have a strong background in chemistry and physics seem to think inventing a new energy source is just an engineering problem like making a faster CPU.
Even recently, I saw a news article touting an "amazing new invention" that can burn saltwater as a fuel by using radio waves. (Look it up in Google. Stories of this invention are all over the internet.)
The very first question that anyone should have asked, before even reporting this story, is "How much energy does it take to generate those radio waves, and is it more energy than you get in return from the hydrogen?" But that question was never asked.
The basic problem is this: When you burn hydrogen (with oxygen), it turns into water. The amount of energy you get out of this reaction is the same amount of energy it takes to separate hydrogen from oxygen in the first place. At best, this invention is a super efficient way of producing hydrogen so that you get back almost 100% of the energy you put in to cause this reaction. That is really neat, and could make generating hydrogen cheaper, but it is no source of "new" energy. It will still take electricity to make hydrogen, and that electricity must come from either nuclear reactors or fossil fuel (for the most part).
It really pains me to be a cynic in this matter. Normally, I would be the last to claim that something was "impossible". Given enough time and ingenuity, mankind seems capable of doing almost anything. However, we must be guarded against the wide-eye view that science can do anything, and do it quickly.
By every model of matter and energy we have come up with to date, including quantum mechanics and string theory, there are only two fundamental sources of energy in the universe: Fission and Fusion.
All sources of energy we use on Earth come from either fusion or fission. Oil is just a form of stored fusion. Fusion powers the sun, which allows plants to bond molecules for storing energy. Plants are eaten by animals who digest these molecules for energy. Large masses of plant and animal material decay and compress over millions of years underground, and that forms oil. Oil has energy because it retains the original complex molecules.
Solar energy, wind energy, and hydro energy are also all forms of fusion power. Every renewable source of energy that we can possibly use must come from the Sun in one way or another.
The only exception to this rule is fission power. Fission power draws energy from the decay of radioactive elements. We can purify and control radioactive materials in ways that can produce great amounts of power.
However, radioactive materials are, themselves, a result of fusion power. Radioactive elements are produced in the cores of massive stars.
Every source of power imaginable comes from fusion power. And strictly speaking, even fusion is not a "source" of energy, but rather a local temporary increase energy that comes at the expense of generating greater entropy in the Universe as a whole.
Unless science comes up with some radical new way to manipulate the very fabric of reality (not gonna happen for a long time), we need to focus on fusion and fission as our only plausible sources of energy. We need to work on technologies that can collect energy from the sun, such as solar panels, wind farms, hydro-electric damns, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.
We also can build more nuclear reactors to take advantage of the radioactive materials we have. But keep in mind that radioactive materials are not a renewable resource. And it also takes a lot of expensive safeguards to use nuclear power safely.
One possible breakthrough in energy generation would be if we could create our own fusion reactor. Right now, fusion technology seems a very far way away. Recreating the center of a sun is no trivial task - it takes fantastic amounts of energy, and it is very difficult to sustain. The sun has the advantage of tremendous amounts of gravity to sustain its fusion reaction.
If it turns out that immense gravity is the only way to sustain a fusion reaction, then the only way to make a fusion reactor is to make another star.
For the the lifetimes of anyone reading this article, we are going to have to maximize solar energy technologies, because our sun's fusion is our best and only long-term solution. All the other things you see making news (ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen fuel cells) only move the problem.
The other shoe that no politician dares to drop is the population problem. Having cheap oil might allow the population to grow to a level that might not be sustainable. There is not enough productive land in the world to grow enough corn and wheat to feed AND fuel the entire Earth. The slight increase in ethanol activity has already caused corn prices to rise.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but I do think it is going to be more difficult (an inconvenient) that most people realize to provide energy and food for 7 billion people using only fusion-derived technologies.
But fusion-derived technologies is all we have.
1 comment:
Excellent overview, and I agree, but the real issue is not as much related to cost as it is to clean up green house gases as I see it.
Sadly, everything comes down to money, and the research dollars properly applied to hydrogen fusion can solve the cost issues more quickly than any other alternative fuel source.
You bring out the fact that every energy source other than nuclear comes from the sun, and I agree, but when I read that the natural resources of food crops is being deminished, this really hits home since many are pushing crop based ethanol and biodiesel, not the ideal solution as long as we all need food to live.
The point I am making is there is a solution, and it utilizes a combination of current alternative energy sources. Who is to say it is impossible to use solar to generate the radio wave frequency modulation to convert salt water to hyrdogen fuel, after all, this was stumbled upon by accident, not researched of developed, so again, it is all about money to fund these breakthroughs, not the impossibility most adhere to.
There are issues with all of the alternative energy issues, and most come down to cost as it always does. It was no long ago that ethanol was not cost effective. Then the same is being said for fuel cells, but with oil over $75.00 per barrel, and we haven't even had our first major hurricane yet, you can count on it being $100.00 a barrel by years end.
This opens up a new issue unrelated to costs, pollution. Solar and hydrogen are the answers, combined, and why, because they are the least damaging to our environment, and this above all is enough of a reason to invest in new energy technologies, for a damaged environment kills our crop potential, and again, we have to eat to live.
So, in conclusion, the environment comes first, at any cost, in my opinion. It has been ignored for far too long, so I want to pose a question. Would you pay $5.00 per gallon for a totally clean zero emission fuel alternative? And if not, would you pay it if there was no foreign oil dependency hinging on it? It is all about conditioning consumers along with educating them. There is a better fuel alternative than oil based products, but we have to demand it, for the politicians all have their pockets lined by BIG OIL, and here in lies the real issue, politics, and back to money we are. (g)
Post a Comment