What is the best alternative energy source to fossil fuels?

[Member2019]

Hydrogen Power Cells
It's Clean and everywhere. The hydrogen can be extrated from water with solar cells.

Unfortunately, electrolysis releases more greenhouse gasses than the entire process of extracting, refining and burning gasoline even in the internal cumbustion engine (ICE). Hence why most power cells are fueled from hydrogen extracted from nautral gas. Which is why oil companies are buying up natural gas companies. This is also increasing the price of natural gas as a result of such acquisitions as well increased used.

If we were able to control the "Dark Energy" that fill up 73% of the universe (visible matter count for only 4%), it would represent an infinite amount of energy
We were even be able to create our own solar system
that's going too far, let stay to the sun/hydrogen & nuclear power for now :thumbsup:

Agreed, but some things are a little too sci-fi for the next 50 years. We really need to either shutdown our existing fission plants or upgrade them to better, safer and longer-lasting fission plants. We're already wasting way too much Uranium with the current plants and it's not that infinite.

It's the best "stop gap" until we find a way to harness fusion that puts out more power (at least in heat) than required to sustain the reaction. That should be within the next 50 years.

Regardless, producing abundant electricity allows us to drive electric cars, and truly have 0 emissions. Even fuel-cells aren't as clean (and far worse than petroleum when it comes to green house gas emissions if electrolysis is used). Compressed natural gas (CNG) ICE is also not as efficient as advertised.

Sadly enough, unless Einstein was wrong in his Nobel Prize winning Photoelectric Effect, solar power will never be feasible on a large scale.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

geo-thermal power is often overlooked....

the core of our earth is running wild underneath us, and i think we have only begun to harness that power.

i agree that a combination of solar/wind/nuclear could be the answer....

but water and geothermal are definately overlooked

Thanks Juballs, I really overlooked that one, when I myself is involved in a research of this sort.

But the reason I came back to this one,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4808932.stm

 

[Jack N. Off]

If someone can ever figure out a way to can farts we'll have an unlimited energy source forever.

Before reading any replies, I voted for other. My vote is for methane. It is naturally produced and is clean burning. So just fart in your tank and drive.:rofl:

 

[Member2019]

Hydroelectric is impossible now, geothermal is limited

Thanks Juballs, I really overlooked that one, when I myself is involved in a research of this sort.
But the reason I came back to this one,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4808932.stm

Hydroelectric power generation requires daming which ***** entire ecosystems. The US has not built any new plants (sands maybe a few?) since the Great Depression.

Although there is research into using the Earth's power below the mantle crust, it's going to take new materials and science to control it -- at least using a traditional steam-turbine approach. The only direct energy-to-electricity process we know how to do is solar -- actual photons. No one seems to be able to convert heat directly into electricity, at least not anything efficient/useful. That leaves only limited gyser geothermal power generation, which is extremely limited.

As far as electrolysis for creating hydrogen -- anytime you guys want to bake the air -- let's do electrolysis on a mass scale. Seriously, it's a major, major greenhouse gas generator.

Which brings us back to real 0 emission power source that just works today. Not only that, we have aging fission power plant designs that need updating, plus their countless "waste" fission materials that could be re-used in these new designs. In the US, a lot of these waste materials are already at the site, so the energy right there, for it to use! And could power most of the plants for over a century.

Far long enough to develop better power sources.
Even Greenpeace is for it. That might tell you something.

But what do I know? I'm just an engineer. That means I have to prove technical, economic and environmental feasibility as my daily job. Oh wait, no, that means I'm just corrupted by business and oil interests -- that's right -- Joe, non-Science American knows better than I. Or the scientist who has never even designed a power plant academically. Stupid me.

As I always say, scientists figured out how to the bomb, but engineers learned how to control it and make feasible power generation from it. Pie-in-the-sky is great! We should continue research and engineers should continually try to designs solutions around them. But at some point you have to realize any application is 50+ years out and you have to plan for today's needs.

Because they used to say fusion would be feasible in 50 years, 50 years ago.