Instead of burning fossil fuels, what do you believe is the most viable form of alternative energy?

[RiverStone]

Poll question: Instead of burning fossil fuels, what do you believe is the most viable form of alternative energy?

With the tragic ecological nightmare in the Gulf offering a preview of more to come, in addition to common sense conservation and recycling - we as a culture (and planet) will need to eventually switch from fossil fuel dependence to renewable/alternative energy technologies. Without doing so, rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and more toxic spills will continue to choke the life out of our planet.

I got into a healthy debate this weekend with a group on a local street corner having residents sign a petition against a potential wind farm development in Oregon/Washington. Whereas we all shared a collective passion for conservation, when I asked what other form of renewable energy do you propose? - they had no good answer. I dislike the visual blight of wind towers as much as anyone, but as our world population grows - we are going to have to compromise our idealism and construct some other form of energy production not dependent on gasoline and oil. I personally prefer wind towers over more dams and coal mines...

QUESTION: What form of alternative/renewable energy do you see as most viable to get us the hell outta the oil drilling business? :shrug:

Note: I did get my poll categories from Wiki (link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_technologies

[Speck Tater]

1. Other: Fusion, if we could figure out how to make it work.

Clean, safe, unlimited energy. It's what powers the stars themselves, and if we can crack that nut we will never worry about energy again.

[Greyhound]

49. We know how it works, it's just the practicalities of retaining the biosphere

that stops its use.

[Confusious]

63. What?

WTF does a biosphere have to do with fusion?

[sakabatou]

2. Fusion?

Sure it's not here yet, but it could be a lifesaver.

[Touchdown]

3. Other: You left out "All of the Above" and "Most of the Above"

I would choose the latter, since I'm not a fan of nuclear energy.

[RiverStone]

6. True - but this poll was constructed to gage "top" choice

And you are correct that "All" or "Most" would work as well; just interested in DU's #1 pick...

[csziggy]

52. But what is best for one area may not be appropriate for all areas

For instance, I am in Florida - solar is likely the best choice here. While wind turbines or geothermal might be more efficient, neither is practical here. Wave power generation could work for generating power along the coast. Hydropower is already used in a limited fashion in my immediate area, but for most of Florida it is not practical since there are few places in Florida where there is enough of a drop in the water levels to generate energy.

Nuclear power looks like another trap of using limited amounts of resources to produce our power.

I think "All of the above: is the best choice.

[alfredo]

57. Not all hydropower generators need the tide. Some use

wave energy, and some exploit the current.

[csziggy]

58. I was thinking "hydroelectric" as in dams but I had a brain fart

There is actually a small dam near here that generates electricity. It had been built in the 1920s, mostly to maintain the level of a recreational lake but also to generate power for the area. The generation portion was abandoned for a while, but a movement got it put back into service and it has been generating power for the City of Tallahassee since 1985. http://www.talgov.com/you/electric/corn.cfm#talquin

The other dam is the Jim Woodruff dam where the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers join to become the Apalachicola River River at the Florida-Georgia border. Those are the only two hydroelectric dams in Florida and they both rely on rivers flowing from Georgia. Florida, Georgia and Alabama have been fighting for years over the rights to the water of the Chattahoochee River - the Jim Woodruff dam is one of a number along the river and with droughts, the river flow has been reduced enough to endanger the ecosystem in the Apalachee Bay. http://www.riversofalabama.org/Chattahoochee/CHATT_Hydrologic_Modifications.htm Neither dam is really essential to the electrical production for this area, but they are nice supplemental sources of electricity.

Interesting - both dams are in the list for Economic Recovery Spending: http://www.recovery.org/projectdetails.aspx?pid=SSC:11000650&gloc=Florida*FL

[alfredo]

60. Silt is the death of dams. You might see a lot of dredges.

[csziggy]

62. Probably - but there is a phenomenon that happens with natural lakes

Around here - sinkholes can open up and swallow entire lakes. I wonder if that could happen to the dammed lakes? That would flush out a lot of silt, though it would be really bad for the karst water system. It does rejuvenate stagnant and overgrown shallow lakes as the trash and debris wash out and grass grows on the dry lakebed, using up excess nutrients.

Lake Jackson is only now filling back up after draining in 1999 and apparently the fishing is already better than it was before it drained.

Lake Jackson normally

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/lakejackson/


Lake Jackson after draining

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/sinkholes.html#sinscenes

[alfredo]

66. Damn! I lived in cave country. Sinkholes are where you

put your garbage. They eat an occasional cow or kid, but mostly they are dumps.

[csziggy]

70. Just south of Tallahassee is one of the largest natural springs

In the country - Wakulla Springs. When Lake Jackson drained, the turbidity in Wakulla Springs increased for a while. National Geographic, various universities and state agencies have explored the cave system from which Wakulla Springs flow and while it is not absolutely proven, the theory is that the extensive system of sinkholes and underground caverns are all interconnected.

Tallahassee's main sewage treatment plant is south of town and they were leasing acreage to use as spray fields and for farmers to produce hay for livestock. But now there is evidence that the effluent sprayed above ground is percolating through the soil and the limestone into the caverns and into Wakulla Springs and the many, many other springs and sinks around here. Added is that the most of the houses south of town are on septic tanks and the prognosis for the quality of the water in the springs is not good.

Yeah, people here used to use the sinks for dumps but they are now protected and many of them are part of the National Forest and have been turned into an attraction. As part of developing them for that, the state and federal governments cleaned them up - hauled a lot of cars and appliances out of them. Unfortunately, they also prohibited swimming in most of them, especially the really steep sided ones, like Big Dismal.

Here is a great photo tour of the Sinkhole Trail - http://www.pbase.com/fdietrich/leon

The sinks were great after a day at the beach or going crabbing. After getting sandy and salt covered, you could stop and dive into a cool, fresh water sinkhole. But I am glad they are being protected!

[alfredo]

71. We have some really great places nearby, McConnell Springs

McConnell Springs

The "boils" When the water is high, it's like the water is boiling from the underground spring.


Blue Hole


Raven Run





Red River Gorge

[csziggy]

72. Beautiful! Thanks for sharing those photos

[alfredo]

76. We've had a few progressive politicians who understand

that not all places should be strip mined, strip malled, and paved over. McConnell Springs was an illegal industrial dump. Some businessmen wanted to build a damn and turn the Red River Gorge into a huge lake for pleasure boaters. Raven Run was a dump.

[XemaSab]

73. We're finished building dams, at least in California

Hydropower is too damaging to salmon. :(

[csziggy]

77. People are moving that way here - the water resources are more valuable

Than the pitiful amount of power the dams produce, especially on the Chattahoochee River. RiverKeepers is only one of the groups that is fighting for a healthier river. http://www.chattahoochee.org/

The smaller dam on the Ochlockonee River is more likely to stay - there are a lot of people who live around the lake it produced and it is an economically valuable recreation area as well as the anchor for a large wildlife area. The location was nearly a natural dam, with a tight spot in a small "gorge" and before the dam there was already a shallow lake there, part of a series of shallow lakes along or near the river's path.

There is some talk about restoration of the river basin, but I am not sure what that involves. I need to read up on it more.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. We already have regional --

energy use going on with the dirty fuels, there is no reason we can't have regional clean energy. Wind where you can, solar where you can, geothermal where you can, wave where you can, etc. And an updated energy grid would be critical.

[Ramulux]

4. There are some awesome biofuel alternatives out there

Check this company out

http://www.valcent.net/s/HDVGS.asp?ReportID=264273

[NBachers]

12. I checked it out. Thanks for the link. I signed up for their email updates

[plcdude]

61. I think

algae is a terrific solution for transportation energy.

[Andy823]

5. What about

A combination of all but the Nuclear option. We have a lot of things we can use, some work better in one area than another, so it should be whatever alternatives best suits the different locations in the country.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. A combination of all of them, plus conservation.

We waste much of the energy that we consume.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Other: A mix of all or most of the above, and a few more...

And, to some extent, that is where we are heading.

Renewables are making up for a larger and larger percentage of our total energy mix.

In California it's higher, but the trend is nationwide.

It will never be just one, not anytime soon.

The best way to get us the hell outta the oil drilling business is "all of the above".

I'll let others argue about nuclear, but it is considered a non-GHG emitting fuel.

:patriot:

[baldguy]

40. +1

[obxhead]

9. undiscovered.

We have yet to truly harness the power of the mighty dollar and American spirit. If we can one day dispose of the 'corporation' in our electoral process we might be able to enact an apollo type project to truly end our fossil fuel dependence. The possibilities are endless, if we care to try in a meaningful way.

[petronius]

10. I tend to think that wave/current energy has teh most long-term potential,

but it will have to be a mix. I think ocean, wind, and geothermal can be done cleanest...

[annabanana]

54. I sit by the ocean for hours watching the waves... There MUST be

a way to harness that.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. All of the above except nuclear.

No nuclear. It has the potential for catastrophe. We don't need any more catastrophes.

[Echo In Light]

17. +1

[jtrockville]

24. Agreed: We need them all. Each region has different resources.

Solar would work well in the dessert. Not so much elsewhere.
Ditto for most other renewable sources. These solutions are regional.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Alaska has an abundance of renewable energy resources --

tidal, geothermal, wind, sun (in the summer), hydro -- and yet we've been stuck on petroleum for years. It's sad, really.

[jtrockville]

28. All we need is the political will.

Yes indeed it's sad. In the midst of our nation's largest oil spill ever, AND our nation's largest coal ash spill ever, that we can't muster up the political will to switch from these filthy fuels.

[RiverStone]

33. What will drive people to buy into this political will?

Gas at $8 a gallon?

We still live in a culture where selfish consumption outweighs pragmatic conservation.

Will it take a human or natural disaster to force people to change? Sadly, I don't see a big shift in our lifetime. Maybe in the next century when the icecaps have melted to 20% of their current size???

I agree with you - just wish I could see it on the horizon...

[Confusious]

65. moose poop?

[MichaelHarris]

13. fat

from dead people. This time really put Ethyl in the tank.

[Terry in Austin]

31. Soylent green for cars! -nt

[guitar man]

35. ROFL!!!

:spray: :rofl:

[johnaries]

14. All of them. Yes, even nuclear - at least in the interrim.

I would also hope biofuels would be temporary, until we could generate enough electricity from wind, solar, hydro, and thermal to switch to hydrogen as a portable fuel.

[jtrockville]

26. Nukes aren't really a viable interim option. Too capital intensive.

[ScarletFyre]

15. What about hydrogen?

??

[Fumesucker]

19. Hydrogen isn't really an energy source..

It's a means of storing and transporting energy but you have to use energy to "make" the hydrogen in the first place such as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

[Scuba]

16. The moon provides a vast energy source...

...via the tides. If we had spent the billions in tax breaks Bush gave to big oil on developing this and other alternative energy sources we would be far better off than we are today. Tax breaks for the most profitable business in the history of commerce. Amazing the public largely fell for it.

[Fumesucker]

22. It depends where you are..

In tropical zones solar probably is the best because the sun is up high in the sky for the entire year and high level winds are less powerful.

As you move further away from the equator solar becomes less viable, in temperate and northern zones wind makes a great deal of sense because high level winds are powerful and the sun is low in the sky for much of the year.

I like the idea of tapping into the jet stream wind energy with flying wind generators that look a lot like helicopters, power available from wind is proportional to the velocity cubed and the wind velocity at altitude is much higher and more constant than it is near ground level.

http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Edited to add: It also depends what you are trying to do, for heating a home or building or providing hot water solar makes a lot of sense in places where solar electric power would not be nearly as effective.

[YankeyMCC]

18. Diversity of sources

Conservation and a smarter distribution grid

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Define 'viable'

if by 'viable' you mean 'capable of replacing all of the energy presently obtained through burning of fossil fuels', the answer is 'none'. A serious and drastic change in lifestyle will have to take place for most people in Western countries in general and in the US in particular. Solar/wind/nuclear/geothermal/hydro electricity would be a good start; unfortunately, for vehicles, the most efficient method of electric power is drawing current directly from overhead lines--which means trains and trams; say goodbye to your cars. Storage batteries are not nearly as efficient and have significant energy cost in manufacturing that would be better spent elsewhere.

Better building practices would also be needed, and better-insulated homes and offices and commercial buildings; in most of the US, at present, the energy expenditures of heating in winter and cooling in summer are quite significant and not viable over the long term.

There is no magic bullet solution that will replace fossil fuels; all or most of the ones you listed together would fill the gap, but only if there were serious changes in consumption habits and expectations that went along with it.

[Terry in Austin]

30. Got that right - oil can't be 'replaced'

We'll need all of the above to get maybe 20% of the energy we get from petroleum. We'll find out soon enough as depletion accelerates.

Even nuclear will be part of the mix -- count on it. Not that it should be...

[RiverStone]

32. What will make people change?

Spider you said: ...but only if there were serious changes in consumption habits and expectations that went along with it.

I agree, and sadly the only way I see a majority of people making this change is if A) Gas costs $7-8 dollars per gallon or B) a natural disaster necessitates change or die. Not in our lifetimes, but folks in the next century may be faced with a planet that creeps closer to being too toxic to maintain their normal quality of life.

Just thinking out loud what will change people into using alternative energy by choice, vs consuming at will?

On edit: kant spel

[Vinca]

21. We could rapidly decrease our use of fossil fuels if the money

given to BP as a subsidy to fund clean energy research (I know, I know, stop laughing)was put into a fund that IMMEDIATELY began installing solar panels on every building in this country at the expense of the government. Every building. It wouldn't be a mandate - teabaggers who want to continue paying big bills to the power company would be allowed to do so.

Edit to comment on nuclear power. I live about 10 miles from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant and about a mile from the Connecticut River. It was recently reported that we have radioactive fish in the river and the ground around the plant is contaminated. This on top of the surprise collapse of a cooling tower a couple of years ago. Nuclear power companies are no more responsible than BP.

[Statistical]

23. Where is all of the above? n/t

[blondeatlast]

27. I live in Arizona--do I need to tell you? nt

[KittyWampus]

29. Garbage- Thermal Depolymerization. Unless Humanity learns to use our waste as fuel

we will die-off/

[KamaAina]

34. Right now, wind looks the closest to going commercial

but down the road, we're going to need them all. Except nuclear, which isn't really renewable (uranium is mined, after all).

[Capitalocracy]

36. Obviously, all of the above and more.

You start investing based on a combination of safety and amount of energy and pollution in all kinds of different methods and make everything as efficient as possible until our energy needs are met in the safest and cleanest possible way. This will quickly make fossil fuels obsolete.

Wind and water current turbines could play a huge role, I don't understand why we don't have solar panels on every roof, and cars should be electric or hydrogen. Also, I hear the Japanese have developed a satellite which gathers solar power and sends energy in a microwave to a harvesting plant on Earth in a geosynchronous orbit. How cool is that?

It's simply a matter of opening up all available technologies, investing in the cleanest ones, changing our priorities, and putting together a plan to make the shift. It will take a few years, but it will never happen if we never start.

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[Heywood J]

37. 2,5-dimethylfuran

Most fossil fuels are burned for transportation - solar, wind, hydro, etc. can't directly replace that in most vehicles and it will be decades before electric cars become prominent. DMF has the potential to be made from cellulose and HF corn syrup, and we already know how to make that in quantity. It has an energy density close to gasoline, and doesn't absorb water like ethanol does. It can be distributed as part of the existing fuel system and a fair body of research suggests that very little or no alteration is required to burn it in a conventional gasoline engine.


Yeah, it still produces CO2, but at least it gets us away from the Saudis while we work on the CO2 problem.

[pipi_k]

38. Boiled cabbage and baked beans n/t

[DCBob]

39. The problem with current solar technology is that its very inefficient and it cant be used for ICE..

There are billions of internal combustion engines on this planet fueled by gas and diesel. These engines will not be replaced by solar power any time soon so we need to find some acceptable alternative to liquid fossil fuels while we transition to solar, fuel cells, etc.

[mdmc]

41. ..

[wildbilln864]

42. hemp seed oil! eom

[krabigirl]

43. Where I live? Solar.

[hunter]

45. Nuclear power will save our sorry asses.

Burn the bombs in existing nuclear power plants. Then burn the nuclear waste from our existing nuclear power plants and our huge stores of depleted uranium and mine tailing wastes in new reactor designs.

We've amassed so much of this stuff we could make plenty of electricity for everyone for at least a century or two without digging any new holes.

shit that will freak you out

[G_j]

68. and the safety plans for any disaster, will be well thought out, and fully in place

just like the Deepwater Horizon.

[Beringia]

46. I would leave out nuclear energy since it is hazardous n/t

[librechik]

47. wind/solar turbines connected to an electric smartgrid

individual homes with solar boosters and plug-in cars

[SmileyRose]

48. What, no love for cow farts?

[Greyhound]

50. Wrong answers. What we use most of the oil for here is to burn it for transportation,

so most of the choices given are not appropriate to reducing our use of oil.

[gleaner]

51. I can only vote once, but there is no option for combining ...

different forms of viable alternative energy. So this is a write in.;) I would pick solar energy, wind energy, rain and tides and geothermal energy. Ethanol was also promising, but I understood that it was created from corn. That would take a heck of a lot of corn, but as a partial source in combination with the others it would be viable.

Tell folks that wind towers don't have to be ugly. On the way to Palm Springs in the Banning Pass there are wind generators which look like sleek white propellers. They remind me of those little pinwheels you could buy at carnivals only all white. In California they are considered a landmark. Ask people if they would rather have tar balls on their beaches and a dead zone in their oceans. If they don't know what it looks like direct them to pictures.

[BreweryYardRat]

53. Blend of nuclear/solar/wind.

Use molten salt reactors for the nuclear component. They're cheap, they're proven to work, they're a lot safer than standard nuclear plants (both in the "no Three-Mile-Island incidents" sense and in the "impossible to use for weapons proliferation" sense), and a few can be dedicated to processing the nuclear waste from standard nuclear plants into elements with shorter half-lives.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Interesting-- I am currently researching molten salt reactors

My research has backed up what you are saying.
It is also interesting to note that President Carter, who had been a nuclear engineer, was interested in thorium reactors (which had been developed in the '60s), but pressure from big-name uranium reactor manufacturers and mining concerns, as well as the installation of Gipper Doofus in the White House, who was more interested in producing weapons-grade plutonium from uranium than in seeking out safer alternatives, led to the abandonment of thorium as a potential energy source. But there is renewed interest today. And some types of uranium-based reactors can be converted into thorium-based reactors.

[harun]

56. Nuclear power, change all commuter class vehicles to electrics. Semi's and work

trucks stay gas.

Done.

[Jakes Progress]

59. Other: Conservation.

[tilsammans]

78. That was my choice, too = "Other"

Conserve as much as possible of what we have and will have, regardless of the source.

[UTUSN]

64. What a WONK question/thread. Fine. n/t

[Lucian]

67. Solar and wind are, by far, the best alternatives for alternative energy.

[NoodleyAppendage]

69. No one can monopolize the Sun, so while probably the best alternative...it won't be adopted widely.

Our corporate overlords will NEVER allow a fuel source that they cannot control and manipulate.

J

[XemaSab]

74. Nuclear has the smallest footprint and the largest output

Small-scale solar is an upper-middle-class toy.

[Hekate]

75. Diversify, diversify, diversify. Solar panels and wind turbines on every roof, to start with.

There is no ONE replacement for our current system -- we have to think in terms of diversity.

Hekate