I hope you guys don't mind me dropping in my $0.02. I am by no means and expert, so I have tried to provide references wherever possible. I welcome any corrections.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is no way anyone can get all Americans to do any one thing. We want to drive our SUV's, turn up the heat in the winter and continue living our comfy lives. Thats why instead of useing less, it makes more since to find an alternative that wont change our lives that much. That way more people will take notice and accually use it.
This is absolutely true, but I disagree with the comments of waste. Our society has been moving continually in a direction of efficiency. CFLs produce more light with 1/3 the electricity. LCD displays and TVs reduce power usage. New computers are designed almost entirely around efficiency. However, increased technology expands capabilities, and net energy usage has never been seen to decrease. This is not a bad thing, as scientific and industrial progress has gotten us to where we are today. So while I disagree with your proposed cause, I agree with the solution: replace fossil fuels with something clean, safe, and renewable (or virtually limitless).
Bear in mind also that there are many developing countries quickly gaining on the US. China is a perfect example, as their per capita energy demands are growing very quickly. When they reach the level of the US, our world energy needs will have increased significantly. Even if the entire US stopped using power at that point, we would still be far beyond current world needs. How do you propose we address that problem? If we asked developing nations to stop increasing energy demand while we maintained ours (and we would be looking at serious economic repercussions even just maintaining the status quo) how do you think they would react? Would that even be fair to ask?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Hydrogen can somewhat produce itself if you think about it. There is an inventor that converted a Volvo to run on HHO hydrogen. The HHO is stripped from water and stored for use all inside of the one car. So he fills up the tank with water, then the car converts the water to HHO useing (I think) a couple of alternaters, then it stores and uses the HHO. So in essence the car uses HHO to turn the engine and make enough power to convert water into more HHO.
As stated this violates the laws of thermodynamics, as Jason mentioned. The energy has to come from somewhere. However, this is very similar to how a standard plug in hydrogen powered car would work.
Electrolysis would produce the hydrogen using power from the grid. Could this be what you're thinking of?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Fusion in theory would solve most of the world's energy problems. The issue is that Fusion needs to occur at a temperature of approx 1 000 000*C. In order to harness the energy the Nuclear plant must be able to withstand these incredibly high temperatures. The EU met on the idea of fusion last year and granted France a few million to design the plant. It's due to be constructed by the mid to late 2020's. Since it is also only a prtotype that would not provide a significant source of commercial energy it would take another 10-15 years following it's construction to build a commercial one. This is all dependant on whether the theory works out and we can build such a high tech reactor and control the fusion core.
You are thinking of
ITER, the last test tokomak generator planned before designing a commercially viable fusion plant. It's expected to finish construction well before 2020, though I would give humanity until 2050 before we see fusion being deployed commercially. However, the remaining issues to work out are engineering problems. The science is sound and well understood, and there are no physical limitation preventing us from using fusion as a primary means of electric generation. It's not a matter of if, but of when.
For those not aware,
controlled fusion power is the holy grail of power generation. It can use a variety of fuels making it virtually limitless, and the only real byproduct of planned reactors, as far as I understand it, would be clean water. Pollution would be virtually eliminated.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Nuclear in general is another viable source of energy but it is in no-way capable of filling the oil gap.
Nuclear energy is more than capable of replacing oil in most forms. If you are interested in a hydrogen economy, we can
already begin producing it now, though Gen IV reactors offer the possibility of much greater efficiency. However, internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient (maybe 30%), so you would be better off moving to
electric cars powered by compact fuel cells charged off the grid. The US already has sufficient generation capacity to support the conversion of every car in the country to electric just from excess off-peak (night time) capacity.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In order to maintain growing energy demands we would have to be building a new nuclear plant every month for the next 20 years. Since it takes about 7 years to construct a nuclear plant and another 2-3 to certifie it and get it up and running you can count out this possibility.
We don't pull oil from a large tank in the ground, but extract it from a variety of sources, so our supply will not simply run dry someday. We will need to begin using less and less efficient methods of extraction, forcing oil prices up over a prolonged period of time. This will provide a transition period, during which time new power plants can be constructed, and construction machinery shifted from oil-based to electric.
Keep in mind, also, that nuclear plants can be built in bulk and can be built quickly. It is only unnecessary regulatory burden that is holding them back. Once the public (and government) gets past the 'nuclear boogieman' and looks at the facts we can move ahead in very short order.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Even if this was achieved Nuclear is still non-renewable so we would just be buying ourselves a little time, rather than fixing the underlying problem within our culture.
Nothing is truly renewable. Solar power is basically fusion for instance, we just keep our reactor in the sky and have enough fuel to run it for another 5 billion years or so. So the issue isn't finding something renewable, but finding something that is practically limitless. Nuclear fits this bill. Current reserves just for nuclear fission, believe it or not,
will last longer than that.
Even if they didn't, nuclear fusion will allow a much larger variety in its fuel source. Helium3 will probably be the most efficient fuel, and can be mined economically from the moon in massive quantities if absolutely necessary. Even if that was not available, though, a myriad of lighter elements can be made to work.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't trust our species to use nuclear fuel for just energy production. There are far too many crazies out there and there have been accidents, in spite of safeguards. In my opinion, we will either be held hostage or destroyed - or both.
This is factually incorrect. I will wager that more people will die from coal mining this year than have died in the entire history of nuclear power.
The worst nuclear accident in our history is Chernobyl,
where some 56 people were killed. Can you provide a cite for any other major industry that can claim their absolute worst disaster killed only 56 people? It is also important to note that this accident occurred due to both worker ineptitude and major design flaws that have since been fixed in generation III+ reactors. This could not possibly happen in modern western reactors.
Weapons grade material can be made with special refinement plants that have nothing to do with power production. Avoiding nuclear power for fear of nuclear attack by a country or terrorist group will not prevent them from gaining access. Modern reactors actually run on fissile material that is
insufficiently pure to create a true nuclear bomb anyway.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] 3) If I were to invest money to fund new energy research it would definitely be for Solar. Even though right now we are incapable of harnessing solar power efficiently, I think we should be pushing for it. It is the most abundant source of energy, and if it goes...well I don't think we'll have to worry about energy that much...
Solar is promising to meet some energy demands, but new
photovoltaic cells are now in the area of 30% efficiency. Even if we could increase that to 90% efficiency (and I doubt that will ever be possible) we will never see more than 3 times the energy we're currently deriving from solar. So we can cut our space requirements to 1/3, but will still need to continue building more and more to keep up with increasing per capita energy needs as well as increased first-world populations. This is ignoring the energy required to actually produce the cells; as far as I understand it we use about as much energy producing them as they will return over their lifetime at this point, but I would expect that to become much more efficient in the future.
I fully support integration of residential rooftop generation, and it will help, but that will be woefully insufficient for
all of our energy needs.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]5) IMO they should quit funding NASA until they figure out a solution to the energy problem. Not that I'm against space exploration, it's just that we have to get our priorities straight.
This is a touchy subject for me, so instead of responding emotionally I'll keep this one short: Without the research done by NASA for space exploration, we would be many years behind in both theoretical and applicable knowledge of most of our leading power generation and storage techniques. There is actually no other public organization that provides nearly as great a return on investment, especially in the sciences.
This will also hold true in the future if you are serious about renewables. The only renewable that has potential to meet even current world energy demands is solar. Unfortunately I don't have a cite handy, but as I recall it would take solar panels across the entire state of Arizona, as well as a large portion of surrounding states, just to meet the current US electric demand. That doesn't take additional energy demands such as transportation into account, nor the projected increase in energy demands in the future. It just isn't feasible, especially with the growing world population and need for more living space. Your only real solution for solar power would be some kind of orbital collection system, maybe something like a
Dyson Swarm, and this would fall under the national space administration: NASA.
Also, note that NASA is the National
Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Although they do have earth sciences divisions, that is not their main directive. We would be better suited with a separate organization for that, just as we would be better suited if NASA were divided into further subsections, but I digress.
Let's not forget also that our 'problems at home' will never be solved. For instance, we have sufficient production to feed every person on Earth...well. However, politics gets in the way, and always will. Science has already provided us with the tools necessary to solve our problems. Taking away money for further research because the human race refuses to learn to use those tools efficiently is not going to help the situation.
Last, I would like to point out that this argument is a
False Dichotomy. As mentioned, many of our most successful technologies for 'solving problems at home' have been inspired by, or were spin-offs of, NASA developed technology. Just as importantly, though, is the fact that if you slashed NASA's budget that money would not automatically go into some kind of earth sciences administration. More likely than not, much of it would be scooped up for
pork barrel projects, tax breaks, or even just decrease our government spending.