Brainstorming Session

[Jamastiene]

I know this may seem redundant to ask the best minds on DU to brainstorm to find a way to get off the oil dependence for energy, but I wanted to try anyhow.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. I only have an Associate Degree in Computer Engineering and we didn't go too deeply into all the different methods to produce energy.

I know hydroelectric, the one I can't stop thinking about, won't cover enough of our energy needs, but I can't stop thinking about it anyhow.

My main question is why can't hydroelectric energy be produced in other ways, besides just dams, and why won't it produce enough energy?

Also, I would like to see this thread be a place for people with ideas of what they think would be the best path forward on producing energy without oil.

I'd love to read other people's ideas and learn. I don't care if it's a makeshift house by house energy producing idea that we can do on our own or something that everyone could use. I would really like to share ideas and learn.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

1. The most important thing individuals can do is to save as much

energy as possible, in every way possible. For the time being, we're not going to move away from traditional power sources. That will take years, even if we started tomorrow. Conserving energy, however, can begin this minute.

[kristopher]

2. We already know the technological road we need to follow.

What we need is the political will to overcome the obstructionism of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.


One place to start understanding the entire picture is with the article I've provided an abstract for below. It rates and compares the various ready-to-go technologies. The first link is to the abstract I've posted, and the second ( http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm ) is to a list of links to full articles by the author on the topic. If you download and do a very leisurely, detailed reading of the entire "Review of Solutions..." article, you will have a very good idea of way the characteristics and potentials of the various energy sources work to meet our needs. You might want to start with the author's Scientific American article that is linked, but be sure to read the Solutions article afterwards.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Nihil]

3. w.r.t. the "non-dam hydro" question ...

> My main question is why can't hydroelectric energy be produced
> in other ways, besides just dams, and why won't it produce enough energy?

The main reason is energy density.

Yes, you *can* drop mini-turbines into almost any stream that is flowing
but the amount of energy you get out from it depends on the volume & speed
of flow. There were some threads on micro-hydro a while back and there are
certainly solutions available - especially useful for any off-grid sites
that have flowing water available - but, in terms of solving the main
energy issues, it is so tiny a scale as to be a non-starter.

[The Croquist]

4. I looked at that since I've got a stream in my back yard

I was shocked at how little I would get.