Alternate Energy Resources For Future ? ur opinion and ideas?

[suleman]

Its one of the biggest challenges to the world that what will be the future energy resource.Although many alternates are adopted but none provided sufficient energy to meet the future or current requirements.Scientists also working very hard on it and breakthrough in it will give defence and warfare a new dimension.

IF ANYONE OF YOU KNOWS ANY SUCH RESEARCH WHICH CAN SUCESSFULLY MEET ALL ENERGY REQUIREMENT THEN PLZZ SHARE WITH US.ALSO IF U HAVE ANY IDEAS OF YOURS REGARDING THIS THEN UR ALSO WELCOME AND DISCUSS ALL POSSIBLE ASPECTS OF IT.BUT CERTAINLY REQIRES UR ACTIVE INPUT HERE.I WILL LOOK FORWARD FOR UR PARTICIPATION.
REGARDS.

[azam145]

Suleman for starters just check this link:

[suleman]

Its not opening on my side.can u please paste some of its material?

[The Watcher]

Plan now for a world without oil
By Michael Meacher
Published: January 5 2004

Four months ago, Britain's oil imports overtook its exports, underlining a decline in North Sea oil production that was already well under way. North Sea oil output peaked at about 2.9m barrels per day in 1999, and has been predicted to fall to only 1.6m bpd by 2007. Even the discovery of the new Buzzard field, the biggest British oil find in a decade, with a total of some 500m barrels recoverable, will not alter by much the overall picture of dwindling resources.

This prospect would not be so bleak were it not that similar trends are now becoming manifest around the globe. The three main oil-producing regions are Opec, the former Soviet Union, and the rest of the world. According to papers presented at the latest annual meetings of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Opec's future production is expected to peak in 2020 at about 40-45m bpd. Under-production in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s has been followed by a new surge in east Siberia and Sakhalin. Together with new discoveries in the Caspian, this will yield a peak of about 10m bpd in 2010.

Combining the models for Opec, the former Soviet Union and the remaining 40 or more major oil-producing countries puts ultimate world oil recovery - past and future - at some 2,200bn barrels, with production peaking at about 80m bpd between 2010 and 2020. To this may be added non-conventional oil and other liquids brought into commercial production by the rising price as oil becomes more scarce. These include oil from coal and shale, bitumen and derived synthetics, heavy and extra-heavy oil, deep-water oil, polar oil and liquids from gas fields and gas plants. These sources, though at very much greater cost, could provide an ultimate recovery of about 800bn barrels and might peak in 2050 at around 20m bpd. But the combined model suggests a peak from all sources of about 90m bpd around 2015.

Today we enjoy a daily production of 75m bpd. But to meet projected demand in 2015, we would need to open new oilfields that can give an additional 60m bpd. This is frankly impossible. It would require the equivalent of more than 10 new regions, each the size of the North Sea. Maybe Iraq with enormous new investments will increase production by 6m bpd, and the rest of the Middle East might be able to do the same. But to suggest that the rest of the world could produce an extra 40m barrels daily is just moonshine.

These calculations place the coming oil crunch some time between 2010 and 2015, perhaps earlier. The reserves in the world's super-giant and giant oilfields are dwindling at an average rate of 4-6 per cent a year. No more big frontier regions remain to be explored except the north and south poles. The production of non-conventional crude oil has already been initiated at enormous cost in Venezuela's Orinoco belt and Canada's Athabasca tar sands and ultra-deep waters. Yet no major primary energy alternative can replace oil and gas in the short-to-medium term.

The implications of this are mind-blowing, since oil provides 40 per cent of all traded energy and no less than 90 per cent of transport fuel. But not only are the motor vehicle and farming industries dependent on oil, so is national defence. Oil powers the vast network of planes, tanks, helicopters and ships that provide the basis of each country's armaments. It is hard to envisage the effects of a radically reduced oil supply on a modern economy or society. Yet just such a radical reduction is staring us in the face.

The world faces a stark choice. It can continue down the existing path of rising oil consumption, trying to pre-empt available remaining oil supplies, if necessary by military force, but without avoiding a steady exhaustion of global capacity. Or it could switch to renewable sources of energy, much more stringent standards of energy efficiency, and a steady reduction in oil use. The latter course would involve huge new investment in energy generation and transportation technologies.

The US response to this dilemma is very striking. The National Energy Policy report prepared by Dick Cheney, US vice-president, in May 2001 proposed the exploitation of untapped reserves in protected wilderness areas within the US, notably the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in north-eastern Alaska. The rejection of this extremely contentious proposal forced President George W. Bush, unwilling to curb America's ever-growing thirst for oil, to go back on White House rhetoric and accept the need to increase oil imports from foreign suppliers.

It was a fateful decision. It means that, for the US alone, oil imports, or imports of other sources of oil, such as natural gas liquids, will have to rise from 11m bpd to 18.5m bpd by 2020. Securing that increment of imported oil - the equivalent of total current oil consumption by China and India combined - has driven an integrated US oil-military strategy ever since.

There is, however, a fundamental weakness in this policy. Most countries targeted as a source of increased oil supplies to the US are riven by deep internal conflicts, strong anti-Americanism, or both. Iraq is only the first example of the cost - both in cash and in soldiers' lives - of facing down resistance or fighting resource wars in key oil-producing regions, a cost that even the US may find unsustainable.

The conclusion is clear: if we do not immediately plan to make the switch to renewable energy - faster, and backed by far greater investment than currently envisaged - then civilisation faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in recent history.

The writer was UK environment minister from 1997 to June 2003

source (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073280779775)

[gf0012-aust]

Part of my responsibility is to look at alternative energy sources, so for the last 12 months I have been travelling to various international strategic and energy related conferences.

What I have noticed is that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, Spanish and the Americans are accelerating development of fuel cell solutions, my observations are:

French - strong focus on micro fuel cells
Germans - strong focus on hydrogen based fuel cells for heavy transport
English - strong focus on fuel cells
Chinese - strong focus on Wind Energy, plus they are hosting the 2004 Fuel Cell Conf
Americans - stronger push on current generation wind energy, the US collectively has more wind projects under development that the rest of the world added together
Spanish - stronger focus on biomass energy generation
Australia, slow push on wind energy, australian fuel cell research is getting more attention in Germany and the US, localised push for vegetable oil and biodiesel solutions for heavy transport

[suleman]

will u please paste some material on this fuel cell.
Thanks.

[gf0012-aust]

will u please paste some material on this fuel cell.
Thanks.

itsa bit difficult as all I have are conference notes which total about 250 pages. ;)

none of the stuff I have is public domain, they made web access available to participants, but there is a restriction on it for publishing in the public domain.... sorry guys... :idea2

[Awang se]

In My country, we were able to move a car using the specialy process palm oil.

[suleman]

will u please paste some material on this fuel cell.
Thanks.

itsa bit difficult as all I have are conference notes which total about 250 pages. ;)

none of the stuff I have is public domain, they made web access available to participants, but there is a restriction on it for publishing in the public domain.... sorry guys... :idea2

I would have love to know a this technology in detail but never mind as its confidential. :) Still i will try to search it and find its detail if i get anything.

[gf0012-aust]

In My country, we were able to move a car using the specialy process palm oil.

Malaysia is considered to be one of the world research leaders in palm oil as a fuel substitute. I had to look at a Petronas conversion technology some 18 months ago

[suleman]

all these technologies are good but yet now we have not seen any energy resourse big enough to meet all the energy requirements in the world as this fosil fuel is meeting.

[Awang se]

Hydrogen is a good fuel, but they exist as a gas in a normal atmosphere which make it tricky to transport and quite dangerous. I don't know about the vegetable oil, but someone said to me that the efficiency is very low, that means, u need a lot more fuel then the fosil fuel to cover the same distance.

Actually i've been thinking about infusing hidrogen and carbon in the lab to form a long chain hydrocarbon materials. Is it possible?

[gf0012-aust]

Hydrogen is a good fuel, but they exist as a gas in a normal atmosphere which make it tricky to transport and quite dangerous. I don't know about the vegetable oil, but someone said to me that the efficiency is very low, that means, u need a lot more fuel then the fosil fuel to cover the same distance.

Actually i've been thinking about infusing hidrogen and carbon in the lab to form a long chain hydrocarbon materials. Is it possible?

It's not so much an issue of whether it can be done, its a matter of its calorific efficiencies (which is the problem with palm oil derivatives)

[suleman]

At the momment i dont see anyother source of energy to replace fosil fuel and fulfill the world energy requirements.

[suleman]

Japan, United States agree to cooperate on fuel cell research


TOKYO (AP) - Japan and the United States have agreed to work jointly on developing hydrogen fuel cells, the U.S. government said Thursday.

The two countries plan to conduct joint research on the production of hydrogen fuel cells - considered a key technology that may one day provide a viable clean alternative to energy from fossil fuels.

"The United States and Japan both recognize the contribution research and development can make to the development of a hydrogen economy and to cost-effective technologies to meet future global energy needs," U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham was quoted as saying in a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

Fuel cells use hydrogen and oxygen to produce power with only water as a byproduct.

The United States has also tried to enlist European support for an international partnership to develop hydrogen energy. But some European officials have criticized U.S. research efforts, saying they neglect development of renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar energy.

The United States and Japan, along with 12 other countries and the European Commission, formed the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy in November 2003 to collaborate on developing the technology and creating common standards for hydrogen fuel utilization.


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/2004/01/08/307865-ap.html

[gf0012-aust]

there already is a standard, its been set by the europeans who have been developing fuel cell solutions for a long time and have functioning test beds in place.

without wanting to be cynical, I suspect that GE and Ballard are feeling the Pinch from companies like Daimler Chrylser who are the world leaders.

At the Fuel Cell conf in Hanover only 5% of the companies there american, the bulk were german and english.

as we say here, "The horse has already bolted.."

[suleman]

gf i dont disagree with u here but in most of ur replies u stress that Europens and Australians are doing more and better research.If it is soo then why dont we see them ahead of USA.Where ever we talk about tech and research USA seems to be leading or atleast leading in making the final products first.Then why is it soo.

[elkaboingo]

At the momment i dont see anyother source of energy to replace fosil fuel and fulfill the world energy requirements.

well, looks like were going to have to batten down the hatches and count the millenia till more animals get ground up into oil. :D

[gf0012-aust]

gf i dont disagree with u here but in most of ur replies u stress that Europens and Australians are doing more and better research.If it is soo then why dont we see them ahead of USA.Where ever we talk about tech and research USA seems to be leading or atleast leading in making the final products first.Then why is it soo.

the bulk of my experience obviously lies with australian, US, german and US technologies. My belief is that the US is better at taking things to a commercial level, I found more australian companies in germany and america than I did in Australia. ;)

I wouldn't rate australia highly in energy research at all, we haven't hit the political tipping point where we need to seriously shift the way we consume power. I think the US is "asleep". Once it does waken, then it is like a locomotive - if you want to beat the US in technology advantage, then you have to get them before they wake up and see and then saturate the technology options with their own solutions.

does this make sense?

[Awang se]

I think the germans already use the fuel cells to power their subs.

[suleman]

gf i dont disagree with u here but in most of ur replies u stress that Europens and Australians are doing more and better research.If it is soo then why dont we see them ahead of USA.Where ever we talk about tech and research USA seems to be leading or atleast leading in making the final products first.Then why is it soo.

the bulk of my experience obviously lies with australian, US, german and US technologies. My belief is that the US is better at taking things to a commercial level, I found more australian companies in germany and america than I did in Australia. ;)

I wouldn't rate australia highly in energy research at all, we haven't hit the political tipping point where we need to seriously shift the way we consume power. I think the US is "asleep". Once it does waken, then it is like a locomotive - if you want to beat the US in technology advantage, then you have to get them before they wake up and see and then saturate the technology options with their own solutions.

does this make sense?

Yes if one think Patriotically then it does makes sence but other then this no. :)

[gf0012-aust]

thats true, but it is very much a first generation unit - which in current development terms is relatively archaic..

[Awang se]

those who pioneered doesn't mean they will excel. Look at the cruise missile. The russian pioneered this technology and keep pace the research. the american only coming to CM concept after START with the Tomahawk and ALCM. But look who's ahead.

[gf0012-aust]

those who pioneered doesn't mean they will excel. Look at the cruise missile. The russian pioneered this technology and keep pace the research. the american only coming to CM concept after START with the Tomahawk and ALCM. But look who's ahead.

Actually I think you'll find that the first cruise missiles were German, both the US and Russia reaped a harvest of technology from the Nazis.

The first sub launched cruise missiles were US, the first shipboard were Russian.

I'd argue that the Brits and the French have the best technologies for CM.
The russians have very good concepts which they appear to struggle in bringing to fruition. reliability being a strong negative on their part,

The issue with technology is that the window of opportunity is quite small, the window of advantage is often smaller.
The US and Russia are doing a lot of ICBM work together, US companies like Grumman did a lot of work with Sukhoi so its interesting to see how the world changes.

[Awang se]

American pioneered the SLCM? i thought it was russian?

[gf0012-aust]

The americans were trialling a modified V-1 series pulse jets (called the Loon) from submarines in 1948.

It required 2 subs, one did a launch and controlled it for the first 80 miles, then a second sub under the flight path controlled it for the kill in the last 55 miles.

[Su_37]

Part of my responsibility is to look at alternative energy sources, so for the last 12 months I have been travelling to various international strategic and energy related conferences.

What I have noticed is that the British, French, Germans, Chinese, Spanish and the Americans are accelerating development of fuel cell solutions, my observations are:

French - strong focus on micro fuel cells
Germans - strong focus on hydrogen based fuel cells for heavy transport
English - strong focus on fuel cells
Chinese - strong focus on Wind Energy, plus they are hosting the 2004 Fuel Cell Conf
Americans - stronger push on current generation wind energy, the US collectively has more wind projects under development that the rest of the world added together
Spanish - stronger focus on biomass energy generation
Australia, slow push on wind energy, australian fuel cell research is getting more attention in Germany and the US, localised push for vegetable oil and biodiesel solutions for heavy transport


Well can you please tell about Cold Fusion Technology , I thyink An INternation Consortium is woprking on Cold Fusion Technology ,( China , Japanm , US , Russia , France, UK )

[Red aRRow]

Problem with fusion uptil now is that just to get the required temperatures, so much energy is spent that is hasn´t been economically viable till yet.
I think there is still debate going on as to whether the new fusion reactor should be built in France or Japan.

[Su_37]

Do you think that Cold Fusion has future ? till what level of sucess they reached , Please post an article on this ...

[suleman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/300000/images/_301893_fusion2_300graph.jpgHigh temperatures are required before nuclei will fuse



Sci/Tech:Should the cold fusion dream die?


By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse
For a while, it seemed that the world was about to change for ever. One scientist said: "By the year 2000, every household will have a cold fusion power source."

But it never happened.

Exactly 10 years ago on Tuesday, the world was introduced to the concept of cold fusion at a press conference at the University of Utah.

Dr Stanley Pons and Professor Martin Fleischman from Southampton University in the UK said they had achieved fusion in a test tube.

Fusion is the energy source of the stars - the energy that is liberated when atoms combine. In stars, and in prototype fusion reactors, this requires enormous temperatures, hundreds of millions of degrees.

Dirty technology

Yet these scientists said it could be achieved in a test tube at room temperature. They claimed their fuel cell produced four times more energy than went into it.

A new era of energy was at hand. It was a discovery on a par with that of fire, said a scientist at the time.

Only hours later, a supertanker called the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William sound in Alaska. It spilled 11 million gallons of oil. It was a powerful juxtaposition - pollution from currently-used energy sources and the promise of a clean, new future.

In the weeks and months that followed, it became clear that the cold fusion effect that was claimed was not as simple and as straightforward as it seemed. Whatever it was, it was erratic and far from understood. Some said it was not there at all.

Now, a decade later, many scientists and commentators have dismissed it entirely. There are cold fusion conferences, but they attract only enthusiasts and rarely the media.

Impoverished science

This is a pity. Cold fusion researchers feel outsiders in the scientific effort. Mainstream scientists ignore them. The result is that neither camp talks to each other and science is the poorer because of it.

Millions of dollars are still being spent on it and large labs still hope to explain and develop the technology. Cold fusion has had only a tiny fraction of the effort and resources that have been lavished on "hot" fusion research. And we have had virtually no return on that investment.

We should give the cold fusion camp time and encouragement.

We live in a fusion universe. The Sun shines because of fusion at its heart. Likewise the stars are visible at night because of the distant fusion fire.

Our coal will not last forever. Neither will the oil or gas, and there will never be enough wind and wave power for us. Nuclear power based on splitting atoms has its problems and disturbs many.

So sooner or later, we will simply have to tame the power of the stars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/301893.stm

[Awang se]

Are they any fusion reactor? i thought most of them are fission. fusion require tremendous heat which make it unsuitable for controlled energy source. the fusion aplication is in the H-Bomb.

If we could find a way to make cold fusion works. we can harness power from the oceans.

[Awang se]

My heart tell me that someone is deliberately waylaid the cold fusion research. though what the reason is beyond my knowledge.

[gf0012-aust]

I don't like subscribing to conspiracy theories - but I suspect you may be right

[umair]

I don't like subscribing to conspiracy theories - but I suspect you may be right

Same here cause the basic principle behind cold fusion seems simple enough to be implemented.Anyhow I have'nt studied physics for 6 years now so I'll leave it at that.

[suleman]

just check the site for a small scale test of cold fussion also test movie.Its not impossible.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtiny2.htm

[Aussie Digger]

It's an amazing world we live in. Cold Fusion research is shunned, while car manufactures spend billions trying to gain minute efficiency gains with dinosaurs like the internal combustion engine. Where are tjhe visionaries? Those with the resources to jump into th next level of technology and introduce it into mainstream society?

[Frozen Hell]

I read somewhere that within next 50-100 years oil would be very hard to find considering the current comsumption rate, especially USA!

[gf0012-aust]

In 1972 they said the same thing. Then they discovered more oil in Russia, then they devised more efficient ways of extracting and refining the oil. When the Soviet Union collapsed progressively in 1989, the US had oil investors going in who bought what the Russians thought were totally denuded oil fields. By using what was then the latest US technologies the US was able to extract more oil out of these fields than when they were at full production swing under Soviet control.

Australia and Timor have discovered huge oil reserves in the Timor Sea

Bottom line - it is finite, but not as finite as all the doomsayers have said for the last 30+ years

[Red aRRow]

Australia and Timor have discovered huge oil reserves in the Timor Sea


Very interesting indeed. Explains a little bit why the Bush administration is getting all cozy with the mates at down under in the military sense.
Also could be a reason for the quick implementation of U.N. resolutions in East Timor while Kashmir has been waiting for the implementation since 50 years. :( :help

[gf0012-aust]

Good grief, 50 years?? Thats appalling, What has happened to make it stagnate for so long..?

[Red aRRow]

Hmmm....will go a little off topic but what the hell. Lemme explain the whole history of the problem. I'll try to keep it as unbiased as possible.
In 1947 the sub-continent was to be divided between the muslim majority areas which were to be turned into Pakistan and the Hindu dominated areas which were to become India. As the sub continent consisted of many princely states governed by a raja or ruler..they were given the choice of joining any of the two new countries according to its own wishes. Controversy erupted in three of the princely states. The states were of Kashmir, Hyderabad and -Junagadh and Manawandar-.
Kashmir had a muslim majority population but a Hindu ruler...while Hyderabad and Junagadh & M had hindu majority populations while being ruled by muslim rulers.
The Kashmiri ruler decided to join India against the wishes of the people of his land and as a result a revolt flared up in the state in 1948. As a result of this the raja asked the Governor General of India for military help. This resulted in the 1948 war in Kashmir. India forces invaded from their side while Pakistani military and militia tribesmen from northern regions invaded from the western side. The LoC (Line of Control) which still exists today dates from that year. It is the place where the two forces met up. India moved the United Nations Security Council to help solve the issue. The Security council passed 4 resolutions stating that the people of Kashmir decide for themselves through a plebiscite. This became totally unacceptable to the Indian government because they knew that the people will choose Pakistan over India in a plebiscite. And thus to date India has refused the implementation of the resolution on one pretext or the other.
The Pakistani stand has always been for the implementation of the resolutions but alas this has yielded no results. So now Pakistan and India are exploring other venues for the solution of the issue.
On the other hand Hyderabad and Junagadh & M's rulers decided to go for Pakistan while the population wanted to join India. At this juncture the India government invaded and forcibly annexed the two territories which till today remain the part of India.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1948/scres48.htm


Well coming back to the topic. I think countries should be investing in renewable or non-polluting sources of energy like solar cells and wind energy. But problems till now have been that these are not very feasable and always depend on the natural conditions prevalent at the time. I am sure with more research more and more efficient solar cells and better wind mills can be developed.

[Awang se]

How about cosmos radiation, can this power be harness too?

[gf0012-aust]

How about cosmos radiation, can this power be harness too?

are you talking about harnessing gamma radiation?

[Red aRRow]

I think he is talking about solar radiation. Like you use these solar sails to "catch" the photons of energy which are being emitted by the sun. I think that's what he is talking about.

[Awang se]

I think he is talking about solar radiation. Like you use these solar sails to "catch" the photons of energy which are being emitted by the sun. I think that's what he is talking about.

Sun is one source, but there is countless stars, and they emit all sorts of EM wave from Radio to gamma. Maybe we could catch a microwave from space and convert it into energy.

[gf0012-aust]

I think he is talking about solar radiation. Like you use these solar sails to "catch" the photons of energy which are being emitted by the sun. I think that's what he is talking about.

Sun is one source, but there is countless stars, and they emit all sorts of EM wave from Radio to gamma. Maybe we could catch a microwave from space and convert it into energy.

The most obvious candidate is a capacity to convert ozone to energy. if we don't stop making the darn hole bigger we better work out how we can diminish its lethality. Converting it to an energy source could be useful.

[Awang se]

Like, solar powered ozone generator?

[gf0012-aust]

its not difficult to create ozone, what we need to do is to repair the hole in the atmosphere that we are creating. using solar power to create a regenerative ozone layer might be something that needs to be done.

otherwise we all better get used to living in middle earth, or not come out into direct sunlight. we probably have a couple of generations left where we can fix things.

[Awang se]

I got plenty of ozone in the generator room.

I guess that's conclude the story about ozone right? now back to the energy resource topic. What if we put the radiation\solar collector in space and then beam the projected energy to a receiver station on earth.